Read and publish (R&P) agreements seek to transition spend from paying for paywalled/subscription access to pay for reading and open access (OA) publishing services. Some agreements offer unlimited ‘read and publish’ in all hybrid and open access journals (for example, the American Physiological Society Journals offer) whereas others offer a capped number of open access articles in subscription journals (eg Springer Compact) or, in the case of the Wiley read and publish agreement, a fund that is drawn down from on a first come, first served basis covering Wiley’s entire portfolio.
One of the main benefits of R&P agreements is that they provide frictionless publishing and compliance with funder mandates at no cost to the author. Consortium transitional agreements (of which transformative agreements are one type) have also expanded publishing opportunities across different types of institutions; for example, as of October 2020, 122 institutions published at least one article in the Wiley read and publish agreement.
Institutions’ decisions on which articles and authors can publish under an agreement impact both on immediate and future value for money in these agreements. For this reason, Jisc and the RLUK Open Access Publisher Processes Group recommend that all institutions participating in an agreement adopt a consistent approach to implementing agreements. This is especially crucial where an agreement involves a capped number of open access articles or a finite amount of open access funding at consortium level.
Here we lay out three key principles for approving articles in transitional agreements:
1. Most read and publish agreements will restrict open access publishing to review and original research articles
Excluded article types will normally include book reviews, abstracts, case reports, commentaries, short communications, technical notes, letters to the editor, research news and conference papers. These article types are not normally included in cost calculations for transformative agreements and approving them under agreements would risk setting a precedent for paying for them.
It is expected that all institutions will apply this principle when approving articles, but in most cases, it will be incorporated into the approval workflow automatically.
Things to note
Definitions of research and review articles can differ between journals, even those managed by the same publisher. You may need to make a judgement and work with the publisher regarding queries surrounding article types, particularly if the work is cOAlition S funded.
Agreements including fully open access journals may feature different approval workflows for hybrid and fully open access journals. Articles in hybrid journals will typically be approved after acceptance but articles in fully open access journals may require approval, and use of publishing funds, at submission. This may mean that articles that are subsequently rejected for publication will release funds to be used for other articles. While complicated, in capped agreements this workflow avoids the risk that after acceptance the author is required to pay because there is no funding remaining in the agreement.
Why restrict to original research and review?
Funders' policies usually focus on original research and review articles. Where agreements feature a consortium cap, value for money depends on using finite article funds to best advantage for the whole consortium. Restricting eligibility to research and review articles only achieves the greatest openness for UK research as a whole.
2. Use of transformative agreements will be restricted to corresponding authors with a contract of employment at the relevant (subscribing) institution
While an agreement may include a definition of eligible authors, the variety of author types that may be affiliated with participating institutions requires institutions to adopt an agreed approach to who may use the agreement.
Institutions are expected to use best efforts to identify the corresponding author’s status and not to approve articles unless the author is understood to have a contract of employment with the institution. Papers with corresponding authors who are honorary, visiting or NHS members of staff without a contract of employment at the relevant institution will not normally be eligible to use an agreement.
Since UK funders have contributed to these agreements, institutions may wish to make limited exceptions to this rule, where the publisher workflow allows, where a paper is funded by Wellcome Trust, UKRI or a former COAF funder and the corresponding author is not employed by an institution that participates in the agreement.1
Why restrict publishing in a transitional agreement to corresponding authors employed at the institution?
Unlike first/last author status, the assumption that the corresponding author (CA) is primarily responsible for the work is reasonably consistent across different disciplines and agreements.
The number of articles covered under an agreement (and occasionally the price) is usually set by establishing the total number of research and review articles published by CAs employed by eligible institutions. Understanding the number of CAs an agreement is likely to cover is a critical part of how Jisc, along with other consortia and institutions, “size” and compare agreements, their possible costs, and numbers of outputs covered. Papers with a CA who is an honorary member of staff, visitor, or otherwise affiliated with linked organisations (eg NHS trusts) should not normally be approved as eligible to use these agreements.
To do so may risk exhausting the available funds in the agreement. It could also commit institutions to funding this type of paper in the longer term. An exception may be made where the paper is funded by a relevant grant (see footnote 1) or where authors employed at the institution have made an extremely significant contribution to the paper.
It is important that an article is not paid for twice through two different transitional agreements. For example, without the CA rule an article could be covered and paid for by Projekt DEAL, and also by a UK institution owing to relevant funding. As the number of transitional agreements increases internationally, the risk of this scenario rises. Having the CA as a common denominator for approval prevents this.
Agreements are liable to influence which author is chosen as the CA on a paper. This is particularly relevant in institutions that publish a high volume of papers with international CAs. Choice of corresponding authorship is at the discretion of the authors. However, institutions should be aware that there is a small risk of academics assuming the role of CA either duplicitously or as a result of coercion.
Institutional open access managers are not expected to monitor this actively. However, where any such activity comes to their attention they should remind the authors that the CA must be an intellectual contributor to the research output and able to identify and defend their contribution, and that an individual’s contribution should not be overstated in exchange for open access publishing under an agreement. This type of activity risks both the financial and reputational value of transformative agreements. Read COPE's authorship discussion document for more information on ethics in publishing.
3. Article approval turnaround - institutions must approve/deny articles within two weeks of an open access funding/approval request from the relevant publisher
Articles may only comply with the REF open access policy if they are made open access at the point of first publication (section 239, REF guidance on submissions (pdf)). Value for money in transformative agreements depends on articles being made open access as soon as they are published.
In most cases, a time limit on article approval will be incorporated into the publisher’s approval workflow. In any event, institutions are expected to respond to an approval request as soon as possible, and no later than two weeks of the request. This will enable Jisc, and institutions, to measure use of the agreement effectively, ensure maximum value for money through immediate open access, and achieve compliance with funder policies.
Discretion is advised in these cases. Jisc recognises the tension between grant funds - which are calculated on “staff power" in research grants - and corresponding authorship, but members of the RLUK Open Access Publisher Processes Group advise that in practice this distinction is not normally a cause for concern.
Depending on the publisher's workflow, it may be possible to arrange for papers to use the agreement where a co-author with a relevant grant (as principal investigator) is based at the approving institution. A participating institution may consider this appropriate where it has used a funder's block grant to fund the agreement. However, in many cases the corresponding author will be employed at a participating institution, and this route should always be preferred.
If it is not appropriate or possible to approve a paper by a co-author, the funder may allow payment by invoice, on the basis that the agreement covers most other articles; and the paper will be eligible to use the Rights Retention Strategy.
Footnotes
- 1 Discretion is advised in these cases. Jisc recognises the tension between grant funds - which are calculated on “staff power" in research grants - and corresponding authorship, but members of the RLUK Open Access Publisher Processes Group advise that in practice this distinction is not normally a cause for concern. Depending on the publisher's workflow, it may be possible to arrange for papers to use the agreement where a co-author with a relevant grant (as principal investigator) is based at the approving institution. A participating institution may consider this appropriate where it has used a funder's block grant to fund the agreement. However, in many cases the corresponding author will be employed at a participating institution, and this route should always be preferred. If it is not appropriate or possible to approve a paper by a co-author, the funder may allow payment by invoice, on the basis that the agreement covers most other articles; and the paper will be eligible to use the Rights Retention Strategy.