Presentation of the preliminary findings of the survey that has been conducted by LIBER in the frame of the Arcadia funded Knowledge Rights 21 program in the "Open Science & AI: a UK policy discussion" event at Tuesday 25th April 2023 in Friends House, London.
status & challenges for the Secondary Publishing Right
Dr. Giannis Tsakonas, LIBER / University of Patras, Greece
[email protected] / @gtsakonas
Open Science & AI: a UK policy discussion / Tuesday 25th April 2023 / Friends House, London
• To specify successful cases of national SPR
legislation and identify the workflow to it.
• Further, to figure out the effect of the existent laws
and to determine the obstacles to overcome in
countries that do not have such legislation.
• Survey of the countries that have SPR in their
legislation (orange), plus countries that have strong
OA policies (blue). International stakeholders’ opinion
was taken also into account.
• A complex issue expressed as the combination of
Copyright and Open Access aspects.
• Several countries have stated their will to reach 100% of OA via many roads.
• Growing concerns about the cost of Gold OA & reuse
• European Union
• Horizon Europe Grant Agreement terms
• ERA: propose an EU copyright & data legislative and regulatory framework fit for
• Strong Council of EU conclusions statements (June 2022 & February 2023)
• OSTP, US: Ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research
• Supporting statements from organizations
• LIBER (#ZeroEmbargo model law) / ALLEA / CESAER / LERU
RPO & RFO
Sorting the concepts
Implementation & Monitoring
RPO & Libraries
idea > expression
manifestation 1 : pre-print
manifestation 2 : AAM Embargoes in STEM/HSS
Anatomy of an SPR article
The author of a scientific contribution …. [extend of
funding] …. [embargo period] …. [format] …. [purpose]
…. [citation of first source].
• Additional elements:
• Definition of periodical (e.g., twice per year)
• Range/Relationships of beneficiaries
• Status of the article
• Critical: republishing without licensing
P NC NC NC
C + + + +
F AAM AAM AAM AAM
EF 50% 50% 50% * 50% * 50%
EP > 12 > 12 < 12/6 0 > 12/6 * < 12/6
AT DE FR SP BE NL IT
DP 2 2 1
RB + + +
• To protect the author
• not compensated; both on the production & the
• disproportionate power of the publishers
• To allow the public to access scientific publications
/ But the original concept was, that
in general, makers of creative
work should be more protected
and have more rights.
/ I think that this article was to
make the research more
transparent first, and that the
public funded research could be
available for every citizen.
• Legal framework
• Science law – Education & Research (FR, SP)
• Copyright law – Justice (AT, DE, NL) or Culture (IT)
• Economic law – Finances (BE)
• Primarily a need of RPOs for alignment with EU (with
OA policies and through the DSM transposition)
• Structure: Ministries, Councils of Rectors, Research
Councils, Councils of IP, Library Associations, etc.
• Skills: might be missing from crucial stages.
/ I don't know that many experts
that are working on copyright
from the view of a user and with
the user, I mean institutional
user, like a repository, like
university, et cetera. In most
cases, they really look at it from
the view of the rights holder…
• Opposition during consultation (SP, IT)
• Lack of engagement by RPOs
• Uncoordinated stakeholders
• Not of high priority when embedded in broader laws
• Support in policy making bodies might be
circumstantial (AT, BE)
/ The word of the university and
the public sector was in favor of
the proposal, but the influence of
the universities is very low. We
don't have a strong organization
defending the interest of Italian
• Follow up policies and laws; linking with Research
Assessment and RFO Calls.
• Uneven implementation in Federal systems (DE, BE)
• The contractual law is often stronger (DE, SP)
• No clarity about the rights holders of the works.
• Reversed thinking: from what is actionable to what is
• Opt-In (enable) vs Opt-Out (oblige) signals the
determination to implement.
/ The fact is that the article in the
law is a recommendation. There
is no control and no paying fee if
you don't reach the law. It's not
an obligation. It's not really
strong for law, you know?
• Harmonization as an opportunity to solve national
(institutional policies & law) and international
(countries) unevenness and weakness.
• needs to be detailed; with mandatory provisions
• silent harmonization (SP adopting Horizon
• The need for a special legislative framework for
research & education
/ … you'd have to decide how
detailed you want the proposal to
be. The trouble with not being
detailed is that, if you adopt an
EU level proposal that's not
detailed, you are inviting in this
harmonization, you're inviting in
the ultimate result of 27 different
secondary publication rights.
• Is the matter of OA growth a Copyright or a Market
• Licensing the republished work or ‘pre-licensing’ a
• To which extend we can base the claim for SPR on the
• Does the SPR pass the three-step test?
/ The challenge here is that for
Member States there's not a lot
of appetite to propose and
pursue EU legislation on this
topic, since it's a multi-year
effort that requires a lot of
effort. Of course, there is very
strong lobbying against this by
the for-profit publisher
• It is difficult to see SPR belonging to a distinct field. It is
both a Copyright and an Open Access topic.
• Principles-driven actionable process.
• Coordinated action on all levels; key stakeholders need to
take initiatives to increase political support.
• Skill building of the stakeholders & monitoring of the
legislative process is essential.
• Implementation roadmap per country is linked to
resources; strong mandates, skilled persons, funds,
• Compromises should be mitigated by a new
acknowledgements & rewards system.
/ It's better to have a poor law and
a good implementation than a
good law and no implementation
for your attention