Project Zero: status & challenges for the Secondary Publishing Right

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.

Transcript

1. Project Zero status & challenges for the Secondary Publishing Right Dr. Giannis Tsakonas, LIBER / University of Patras, Greece gtsak@upatras.gr / @gtsakonas Open Science & AI: a UK policy discussion / Tuesday 25th April 2023 / Friends House, London
2. Aim • 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.
3. Environment • 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 research • 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
4. Secondary Publishing Nations Rights Retention RPO & RFO Sorting the concepts , Implementation & Monitoring RPO & Libraries idea > expression manifestation 1 : pre-print manifestation 2 : AAM Embargoes in STEM/HSS
5. 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 + + + SA NW
6. Reasons • To protect the author • not compensated; both on the production & the consumption stage • 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.
7. Context • 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) • Stakeholders • 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…
8. Engagement • 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 University.
9. Implementation • 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 reasonable. • 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?
10. Solutions • 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 Europe GA) • 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.
11. Concerns • Is the matter of OA growth a Copyright or a Market problem? • Licensing the republished work or ‘pre-licensing’ a work? • To which extend we can base the claim for SPR on the moral right? • 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 community.
12. Conclusions • 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, infrastructures. • 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
13. Thank you for your attention