{"id":9347,"date":"2024-07-16T11:47:37","date_gmt":"2024-07-16T11:47:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.lshtm.ac.uk\/library\/?p=9347"},"modified":"2024-07-16T13:00:26","modified_gmt":"2024-07-16T13:00:26","slug":"does-lshtm-need-an-institutional-rights-retention-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.lshtm.ac.uk\/library\/2024\/07\/16\/does-lshtm-need-an-institutional-rights-retention-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Does LSHTM need an institutional rights retention policy?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

Photo by Andrea De Santis on Unsplash<\/sup><\/p>\n

Yes!<\/em><\/p>\n

For too long research outputs have been restricted behind paywalls, with authors unable to reuse their own work without first getting permission from their publisher \u2013 having signed away their rights in restrictive licence to publish agreements. We argue that having an institutional rights retention policy will allow us to further our commitment to ensuring research produced at LSHTM is available to all open access, removing barriers and promoting equity.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

When in 2008 Harvard\u2019s Faculty of Arts & Sciences<\/a> voted unanimously for a non-exclusive licence to distribute their research for any non-commercial purpose, they paved the way for others to follow. In Europe, Coalition S<\/a> developed a \u2018rights retention strategy\u2019 and from 2021, those organisations aligned with Plan S, were mandating that researchers use this strategy where necessary to ensure research they had funded was made immediately open access upon publication (with no embargoes permitted).<\/p>\n

Following on from this, where the funders went first, institutions could then follow, and over the last few years, an increasing number of UK based institutions and coalitions have implemented their own rights retention policies. This not only ensures researchers at those institutions are compliant with funder policies, regardless of their choice of venue in which to publish, but also normalises that research is made openly available immediately on publication \u2013 supporting rapid dissemination of research and promoting open science. It is also equitable. Adding a CC BY licence to the author accepted manuscript (AAM) version, and making it available upon publication, does not require the author to have funds to pay for open access, or the reader to have a subscription in order to read the final text.  <\/p>\n

Whilst in the early days of implementation there were understandable concerns, over legal actions and researchers getting into trouble with their publishers, the worst fears seem not to have come to pass. That is not to say there haven\u2019t been a few bumps in the road \u2013 and we know there have been instances of publishers rejecting papers that include the rights retention language (desk reject), and of papers being diverted down a paid open access route when the author has stated an intention to apply a CC BY licence to the AAM – however on the whole the approach seems to have been largely ignored. This is perhaps due, at least in part, to the preference from authors for the final publishers PDF version to be published open access and a continuing willingness to pay for this. The rise in read and publish deals between libraries and publishers has also made having the publishers PDF version open access easier for those at institutions able to sign up.  <\/p>\n

What an institutional rights retention policy offers then is another option, and that may be exactly what is needed.  By having multiple models and routes for authors to follow, we can ensure research is disseminated quickly and support our goal of immediate open access, regardless of whether the author has funding to pay, or their institution is part of a deal. By having an institutional rights retention policy in place, researchers can retain ownership of rights and content in work they create, making it possible for them to reuse their work as they see fit \u2013 be that in their own teaching and research or by enabling others to build on their work.<\/p>\n

From an administrative perspective, having an institutional rights retention policy in place also makes life easier. No longer will authors and libraries need to check each individual publisher policy before depositing an AAM to their repository to see whether it is permitted, or an embargo required, and can be safe in the knowledge that both funder and REF policies are adhered to.  <\/p>\n

So, thanks to the forerunners and the early adopters, the risk of UK institutions implementing their own institutional rights retention policies seems manageable, there\u2019s safety in numbers after all. The publishers can continue generating revenue from the deals and paid for open access routes, and maybe we can all get one step closer to our goal of immediate open access.<\/p>\n

\n

Further reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Rights retention: A Primer from UKRN<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n