Traces the 12-year self-archiving policy journey of the original 107 publishers listed on the SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Policy Database in 2004, through to 2015. Maps the RoMEO colour codes (‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘yellow’ and ‘white’) and related restrictions and conditions over time. Finds that while the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the 12 years, the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively. A significant positive correlation was found between the increase in self-archiving restrictions and the introduction of Gold paid open access options. Suggests that by conveying only the version of a paper that authors may self-archive, the RoMEO colour codes do not address all the key elements of the Bethesda Definition of Open Access. Compares the number of RoMEO ‘green’ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for ‘redefined green’ (allowing embargo-free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository). Finds that RoMEO ‘green’ increased by 8% and ‘redefined green’ decreased by 35% over the 12 years. Concludes that the RoMEO colour codes no longer convey a commitment to green open access as originally intended. Calls for open access advocates, funders, institutions and authors to redefine what ‘green’ means to better reflect a publisher’s commitment to self-archiving.

This paper is the second in a series of studies (see Gadd, E., C. Oppenheim, and S. Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving. Journal of Documentation. 59(3) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licences. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions, and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. Concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal licence agreements.

This is the first of a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC‐funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open‐archiving) which investigated the IPR issues relating to academic author self‐archiving of research papers. It considers the claims for copyright ownership in research papers by universities, academics, and publishers by drawing on the literature, a survey of 542 academic authors and an analysis of 80 journal publisher copyright transfer agreements. The paper concludes that self‐archiving is not best supported by copyright transfer to publishers. It recommends that universities assert their interest in copyright ownership in the long term, that academics retain rights in the short term, and that publishers consider new ways of protecting the value they add through journal publishing.

The paper presents the findings of a small-scale study undertaken at a UK university. The purpose of the research was to investigate the perceived impact and value of the Academic Library Liaison service at the university. This was considered to be a critical issue of concern, in the light of drivers threatening the UK higher education library sector to de-professionalise -or worse, remove -such services. A mixed methods approach was adopted, combining an online questionnaire disseminated to academic staff, resulting in 29 responses from three academic departments, and in-depth interviews with eight members of academic staff. The results indicate that although academic staff do value the service provided by Academic Liaison Librarians (ALLs), there is scope to increase awareness of the range of services on offer. The study also demonstrates that academic staff prioritise the contribution that ALLs can make through the possession of in-depth subject knowledge, IT skills and well-developed communication skills, and through the provision of advice on copyright matters and assistance with institutional repositories. This holds implications for curriculum design on the part of LIS educators.

This article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC‐funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers' copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self‐archiving: 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper; 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self‐archiving as prior publication; 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self‐archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self‐archiving could take place. The article concludes that author–publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both parties.