Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?

Tony Ross-Hellauer, Birgit Schmidt, Bianca Kramer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

As open access (OA) to publications continues to gather momentum, we should continuously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this space is the creation of OA publishing platforms commissioned by funding organizations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commission and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This article examines ethical, organizational, and economic strengths and weaknesses of such platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats presented by funder OA platforms in the ongoing transition to OA. The article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, finding them a novel intervention which stands to help increase OA uptake, control costs of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commitment to fostering open practices. However, the article identifies key areas of concern about the potential for unintended consequences, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, difficulties of scale, potential lock-in, and issues of the branding of research. The article ends with key recommendations for future consideration which include a focus on open scholarly infrastructure.

Original languageEnglish
JournalSAGE Open
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

open access
Conflict of Interest
Foster Home Care
Cost Control
Research
Publications
Economics
Research Personnel
Organizations
Health
conflict of interest
European Commission
Open Access
communications
funding
commitment
threat
infrastructure
costs
health

Keywords

  • open access
  • publishing platforms
  • research funders
  • scholarly communications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? / Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Schmidt, Birgit; Kramer, Bianca.

In: SAGE Open, Vol. 8, No. 4, 01.10.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Ross-Hellauer, Tony ; Schmidt, Birgit ; Kramer, Bianca. / Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?. In: SAGE Open. 2018 ; Vol. 8, No. 4.
@article{d17d7226686b405187ab9d5ebebc3c00,
title = "Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?",
abstract = "As open access (OA) to publications continues to gather momentum, we should continuously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this space is the creation of OA publishing platforms commissioned by funding organizations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commission and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This article examines ethical, organizational, and economic strengths and weaknesses of such platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats presented by funder OA platforms in the ongoing transition to OA. The article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, finding them a novel intervention which stands to help increase OA uptake, control costs of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commitment to fostering open practices. However, the article identifies key areas of concern about the potential for unintended consequences, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, difficulties of scale, potential lock-in, and issues of the branding of research. The article ends with key recommendations for future consideration which include a focus on open scholarly infrastructure.",
keywords = "open access, publishing platforms, research funders, scholarly communications",
author = "Tony Ross-Hellauer and Birgit Schmidt and Bianca Kramer",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2158244018816717",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "SAGE open medicine",
issn = "2050-3121",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?

AU - Ross-Hellauer, Tony

AU - Schmidt, Birgit

AU - Kramer, Bianca

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - As open access (OA) to publications continues to gather momentum, we should continuously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this space is the creation of OA publishing platforms commissioned by funding organizations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commission and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This article examines ethical, organizational, and economic strengths and weaknesses of such platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats presented by funder OA platforms in the ongoing transition to OA. The article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, finding them a novel intervention which stands to help increase OA uptake, control costs of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commitment to fostering open practices. However, the article identifies key areas of concern about the potential for unintended consequences, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, difficulties of scale, potential lock-in, and issues of the branding of research. The article ends with key recommendations for future consideration which include a focus on open scholarly infrastructure.

AB - As open access (OA) to publications continues to gather momentum, we should continuously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this space is the creation of OA publishing platforms commissioned by funding organizations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commission and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This article examines ethical, organizational, and economic strengths and weaknesses of such platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats presented by funder OA platforms in the ongoing transition to OA. The article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, finding them a novel intervention which stands to help increase OA uptake, control costs of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commitment to fostering open practices. However, the article identifies key areas of concern about the potential for unintended consequences, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, difficulties of scale, potential lock-in, and issues of the branding of research. The article ends with key recommendations for future consideration which include a focus on open scholarly infrastructure.

KW - open access

KW - publishing platforms

KW - research funders

KW - scholarly communications

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057952117&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2158244018816717

DO - 10.1177/2158244018816717

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - SAGE open medicine

JF - SAGE open medicine

SN - 2050-3121

IS - 4

ER -