Open access

Initial statement, May 2013

We are generally in favour of Open Access for all research outputs, provided it is delivered in an appropriate fashion
We value all research, and want to provide the best possible atmosphere and ethos to allow all our researchers to produce outputs
We recognise and value the concept of academic autonomy and choice, and do not seek to adopt any position that may be perceived as a threat to academic freedom
We support Open Access in making research publicly available for the international research community and society more widely.

Open Access position paper definitions

'Preprint" - the version of the paper originally submitted to the journal for refereeing

"Postprint" - the finally accepted version of the paper sent to the journal for publication

"Reprint" - the version (including branding and numbered pages) that finally appeared in the journal.

When a journal article or conference paper is accepted for publication, the researcher must deposit the postprint or a web link to a gold open access reprint in the institutional repository via the CRIS (Current Research Information System).
If a researcher's output has been funded by a funder that has explicit Open Access requirements, then the researcher must comply with the funder's policy.
Our current position is that we do not wish to specify any Open Access requirements on books, monographs, book chapters and other output media. This position may be subject to change if further information becomes available or external circumstances alter.
If a researcher seeks funding for gold Open Access from either the RCUK Open Access block grant or the University's Central Research Fund, then they should contact their Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange who will give them a funding application proforma to complete. Whether funding is awarded will be decided by a group comprising the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange and the four Associate Deans for Research and Knowledge Exchange.
The UK's position (and world view) on Open Access is constantly evolving. The position described in this paper will therefore be constantly reviewed in the light of emerging practice and policy, and will also be fully reconsidered once HEFCE have issued official guidance relating to Open Access requirements that might be put in place for future national exercises involving the distribution of core research funding via research assessment (e.g REF 2020).

The two key routes to open access

Gold route

Considered to be the most sustainable method in the long term, the gold route involves publishing in a fully open access journal or website. Subjected to the same peer-review procedures as a traditional journal, the open access journal will usually be available online. Authors may need to pay for their work to be published, although this is very rare as it is often provided for by the research grant. Some institutions even pay these fees out of a central fund to account for the differences between research councils.

Green route

Self-archiving in a repository is a concept that is gradually gaining ground. There are risks, as this process relies on researchers uploading their own papers. To counter this, some institutions have made it compulsory for all published work to be added to their respective repositories. Repositories offer a number of benefits. They increase the availability of some published journal works with restrictions on reprinting or text mining, and may enable work to be propogated across the internet and used for novel applications. Repositories also allow authors to keep track of who is downloading their data.