SallySmith_A2

Assignment 2: Evaluating the University of Georgia's Open Access Policy

Description of Repository: Athenaeum@UGA is the institutional repository for the University of Georgia (UGA) and collects scholarly, creative, and other works produced by members of the UGA community. The repository also belongs to the state-wide GALILEO Knowledge Repository. Notable collections include theses and dissertations beginning in 1999 and research papers from UGA departments and institutions. The types of materials that the repository is interested in collecting include peer-reviewed publications, research materials, curriculum materials, conference papers, research posters, music scores, and performances (University of Georgia Libraries).

Description of Current Policy: Individuals who submitted their work to the repository agree that they have the rights to submit the work and that making the work available does not infringe on any other creator’s rights. They also agree to “grant the University a nonexclusive, perpetual license to accept their work, archive it in whatever current or future format determined to be appropriate, and display the works on a royalty-free basis.” The repository also allows for theses and dissertations to be embargoed before made available on the platform (University of Georgia Libraries).

Proposed Change to Policy: Athenaeum@UGA must adopt a more stringent policy to require ALL faculty to submit their scholarly articles into the repository while they are affiliated with the University. The current policy only suggests to researchers that they submit their work which severely limits the number of items shared via the repository. By requiring all faculty members and their research partners to submit scholarly research produced while at the University, the repository would significantly expand the breadth and depth of its collections as well as enhance its scholarly reputation.

Taking inspiration from Rutgers University’s OA policy, I propose that UGA adopt a new policy that requires all faculty and their affiliated partners to submit scholarly works created while employed by the University to the repository. The policy would state that all currently employed faculty members “[grant to the University of Georgia] a nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles (Rutgers University Libraries). Authors can apply for an exemption under the policy.

The change in policy only applies to scholarly research and not the other types of items collected by the repository. Scholarly articles include only those not created for a profit and can be either peer-reviewed journal articles or conference proceedings (Rutgers University Libraries). Creative works such as music scores and performances and scholarly items such as posters will not be included in the policy but can still be added to the repository.

Works would only be eligible if published after the implementation date, although faculty would be allowed to share earlier works if legally possible. If authors agreed to a previous licensing agreement with another journal or institution before the start of this new policy, they would be exempt from submitting scholarly articles produced while in that agreement. Lastly, authors can still apply for an embargo that would allow them “to delay access for a specified period of time” (Rutgers University Libraries). The item should still be submitted to the repository and will be made “dark” or inaccessible until the embargo period ends (Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communications).

In situations where early career authors fear that the policy would prevent them from publishing in prestigious journals, UGA can offer them the opportunity to opt out of submitting to the repository. MIT provided an opt out option after faculty expressed concern that the policy could force younger faculty into a precarious relationship with journals. Additionally, faculty were concerned that the policy might conflict with their obligations in their scholarly societies (MIT Libraries). UGA faculty may share these concerns which could also be addressed by having an opt out policy.

Implementation: To implement the policy, the library will need to query the faculty to see if they have their support. The library will also need to greatly expand the scholarly communication team to effectively manage the number of articles ingested into the repository. I recommend that the team include at least three librarians that oversee the receiving of articles and making them accessible online. The Scholarly Communications team will be the face of the policy and will be responsible for briefing all liaison libraries on the new OA policy. Liaisons will disseminate information about the policy to faculty in their subject areas. They will also be the ones to present the policy for a faculty vote that will ensure that the repository can begin collecting works (Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communications). Each department will need to designate one person as a liaison between researchers and the repository. This person can be an existing faculty or staff member or a new student position who will be the point of contact regarding all necessary forms and submissions to the repository.

Budget: The budget will need to be adjusted to include new positions for the scholarly communications team. Specifically, the budget would need to be adjusted to include at least two more librarian positions for the scholarly communications team. Additionally, each department would have to determine the salary adjustments for the liaisons if choosing to add the duties to an existing faculty position or hiring a student to complete the duties. However, there is already enough infrastructure in place to continue supporting the repository online.

Risks: There are very few risks of adopting this policy. However, there are a few things that should be taken into consideration when adopting the policy.

- We run the risk of alienating a few journals who will not want to publish articles that are also made available through the repository. MIT’s Policy suggests that in these situations, authors find an alternative journal to publish in, try to negotiate with the publisher to accept the policy and apply for an embargo period, or obtain a special waiver from the University to publish in the journal (MIT Libraries).

- There is a potential for legal action on the part of the journals who see the repository as infringing upon their copyright. In these situations, the University will need to provide legal counsel for the researchers.

Benefits: Below are a few benefits of requiring all UGA researchers to submit to the repository.

- In adopting this policy, UGA would be joining her peers in developing a robust OA policy and institutional repository. Other institutions such as Rutgers and Harvard have adopted similar policies and have greatly benefited from increased access to scholarly works.

- Research has shown that by requiring researchers to submit their work repositories significantly grow in terms of the scholarly content that they house. When optional, only 4% of researchers chose to participate in the NIH Public Access Policy (Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communications).

- All faculty would benefit from requiring submission by acting as a group to make it easier to negotiate with journals for equitable pricing and access to information (Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communications).

- The mission of Athenaeum to “[showcase and preserve] scholarly, creative, and other works unique to the UGA community” will be greatly enhanced as the full scope of all research conducted at the University will be fully realized in the repository (University of Georgia Libraries).

Evaluating Success: To evaluate the success of the new policy, the scholarly communications team will need to survey faculty members to assess the ease of submission to the repository, the scholarly benefits of submitting research, and whether the policy has impacted their relationships with other journals. Librarians will also need to assess their internal policies and methods of carrying out the repositories mission to see if they are efficiently processing articles and making items accessible quickly. Assessment in the form of surveys or in-person interview should be conducted after the first and second year of the policy implementation. If deemed successful after a two-year period, the policy could be extended to non-faculty researchers such as graduate students, doctoral students, and librarians.

References

MIT Libraries. (n.d.). FAQ on the OA Policy. MIT Libraries. https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/faq-on-the-oa-policy/.

Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communications. (n.d.). Author Frequently Asked Questions. Harvard Library. https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/authors/faq/.

University of Georgia Libraries. (n.d.). Athenaeum@UGA: UGA’s Institutional Repository: About Athenaeum. University of Georgia Libraries. https://guides.libs.uga.edu/c.php?g=1174190&p=8578971

Rutgers University Libraries. (2014). Rutgers Open Access Policy. Available here: https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/research-tools-and-services/open-access-scholarship

I have neither given nor received aid while working on this assignment. I have completed the graded portion BEFORE looking at anyone else's work on this assignment. Signed Sally Smith