Search

A North American framework for creating transformative change in the scholarly publishing industry based on initial insights from the University of California’s 2018-19 negotiations with Elsevier.

The Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI, https://sparcopen.org/coapi ) is committed to sharing information and resources to assist in the development and implementation of institutional Open Access (OA) policies. The COAPI Toolkit includes a diverse collection of resources that COAPI members have developed in the course of their OA policy initiatives. These resources are openly accessible and published here under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licenses, unless otherwise noted on the resources themselves.

Pay It Forward is a major study conducted by the University of California, Davis, and the California Digital Library, on behalf of the University of California Libraries, and with collaborating libraries at Harvard University, Ohio State University, and the University of British Columbia addressed the financial ramifications for the types of research institutions whose affiliated scholars generate a preponderance of the scholarly literature. The project focused on large, research-intensive universities in North America and defined sustainability as costing those institutions roughly no more than, and ideally considerably less than, current journal subscription costs for comparable journals today, with a rate of growth that will be possible for these institutions to support over time. The project sheds new light on the financial viability of the article processing charge business model to create open access at a much larger scale.

Pay It Forward is a major study conducted by the University of California, Davis, and the California Digital Library, on behalf of the University of California Libraries, and with collaborating libraries at Harvard University, Ohio State University, and the University of British Columbia addressed the financial ramifications for the types of research institutions whose affiliated scholars generate a preponderance of the scholarly literature. The project focused on large, research-intensive universities in North America and defined sustainability as costing those institutions roughly no more than, and ideally considerably less than, current journal subscription costs for comparable journals today, with a rate of growth that will be possible for these institutions to support over time. The project sheds new light on the financial viability of the article processing charge business model to create open access at a much larger scale.

Pay It Forward is a major study conducted by the University of California, Davis, and the California Digital Library, on behalf of the University of California Libraries, and with collaborating libraries at Harvard University, Ohio State University, and the University of British Columbia addressed the financial ramifications for the types of research institutions whose affiliated scholars generate a preponderance of the scholarly literature. The project focused on large, research-intensive universities in North America and defined sustainability as costing those institutions roughly no more than, and ideally considerably less than, current journal subscription costs for comparable journals today, with a rate of growth that will be possible for these institutions to support over time. The project sheds new light on the financial viability of the article processing charge business model to create open access at a much larger scale.

Tied to [the] question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?, Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, 2016

Who decides the future of open access, or, rather, who has the power to make decisions that can affect the future of open access? We believe that large scale, transformative, and inclusive progress on these questions can transpire when several entities, each with different complementary powers, convene to collaborate on win-win solutions. We offer three examples of such possible scenarios: the way scholars are evaluated, the way some innovations in scholarly publishing can be nurtured, and the way global cooperation can transform existing journals to open access. OSI2016 Workgroup Question Tied to [the] question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?, Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, 2016

Who decides the future of open access, or, rather, who has the power to make decisions that can affect the future of open access? We believe that large scale, transformative, and inclusive progress on these questions can transpire when several entities, each with different complementary powers, convene to collaborate on win-win solutions. We offer three examples of such possible scenarios: the way scholars are evaluated, the way some innovations in scholarly publishing can be nurtured, and the way global cooperation can transform existing journals to open access.OSI2016 Workgroup QuestionTied to [the] question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?

In this panel we’re going to be discussing the conditions that should be applied to libraries and archives in their digitizing, maintaining and making available copyrighted works. This is an area where there was a lot of discussion and debate in the Section 108 Study Group because while common ground could be found on, for example, allowing libraries and archives to make proactive preservation copies of published works, agreement was much harder to come by on how this should be conditioned., The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 36 No. 4 (2013)