On passing an open access policy at Florida State University: From outreach to implementation

Abstract

In February 2016, the Florida State University (FSU) Faculty Senate passed an institutional Open Access (OA) Policy by unanimous vote,1 following the lead of many public and private universities across the United States. This was the culmination of many years of outreach and advocacy by OA champions at FSU, with a diverse, talented team of faculty and librarians making significant contributions along the way. This was also just one instance of a growing trend across North America and globally, with impressive growth in the number of OA policies and mandates adopted by research organizations and funders over the past decade. The adoption of an OA policy still presents many challenges with respect to policy compliance,2 and there are open questions about the long-term impact of different OA policy requirements and implementation models.3 At the same time, OA policy adoption remains an important goal for many institutions, a symbolic affirmation of faculty support for the principles of OA. An OA policy can help an institution raise the profile of its institutional repository (IR), invigorate outreach efforts and content recruitment, and, in the case of Harvard Model policies, safeguard the author rights of its faculty.4

Do Open Access Mandates Work? A Systematized Review of the Literature on Open Access Publishing Rates

“…The focus of several articles in the final round did not appear to be on the results of the mandate but instead on some related aspect, such as case studies looking at how an institution or library worked to implement an OA mandate (Gilbert et al, 2011;Xia et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2015;Soper, 2017;Daoutis & Rodriguez-Marquez, 2018;Smart, 2019). However, in order to properly assess the implementation, having clear data to show the results is important.…”

“…After this stage of screening, we were left with 11 articles: Colavizza et al, 2020Daoutis & Rodriguez-Marquez, 2018 Eriksen & Alstad, 2014 Gilbert et al, 2011Hardwicke et al, 2018Herrmannova et al, 2019Smart, 2019Soper, 2017Staudt, 2020Xia et al, 2012Zhang et al, 2015 These were divided among the team members and coded using a shared Excel spreadsheet, in which we recorded key information about each study, such as the institution(s) and mandator(s) it featured, specific details about the mandate or policy itself, and the deposit rates or raw numbers pre and post mandate. We then used Glynn's (2006) critical appraisal tool for libraries to further evaluate the articles.…”

The Challenging State of University Campus and Library Open Access Policies

“…These policies opened UC scholarship that had been locked behind publisher paywalls, where it was "inaccessible to global communities who might benefit substantially from the discoveries, innovations and critical inquiry therein." The adoption and implementation of Florida State University's OA policy was detailed by Devin Soper (2017), who situated the adoption within a global trend among research institutions. Soper also cited some common rationales: "…OA policy adoption remains an important goal for many institutions, a symbolic affirmation of faculty support for the principles of OA.…”

Free for all, or free-for-all? A content analysis of Australian university open access policies

“…Cochrane & Callan (2007) describe the development, implementation and impact of an eprint deposit mandate at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), describing collaboration between the University Research Office and Library, and the advocacy work required to obtain buy-in from research staff. Soper (2017) similarly outlines the background to the passing of an OA policy at Florida State University, with a rich description of institutional politics and advocacy efforts, and discussion of processes and systems developed to support its implementation. Kern & Wishnetsky (2014) highlight the role of the library in the development of an OA policy at Allegheny College, noting that an holistic effort was required encompassing advocacy and systems development, and emphasising the importance of institutional buy-in.…”