LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:28:58 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:24:30 -0400

Of possible interest, and see Robert Kiley's explanation:

https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/why-we-have-set-publisher-requirements

"An analysis of the 2014-15 Charity Open Access Fund (COAF), which
includes Wellcome funding, revealed that 30% of Wellcome and COAF
member articles for which an APC was paid didn't comply with our open
access policies.

"The relationships in the publication process aren’t straightforward,
and we know there has been confusion with the process – for instance
with which type of licence a researcher should choose for an article
to be fully open access.

"To try to address this issue we're now setting out requirements
stating what we expect from publishers when an APC is levied.
Publishers that cannot commit to providing these services will not be
eligible for funding from us to cover APCs for Wellcome-funded
research.

And dates are:

6 September 2016: publisher requirements published
6 September to 15 December 2016: publishers requested to indicate if
they can provide the defined services
6 January 2017: Wellcome publishes a full list of publishers who can
comply with our requirements
1 April 2017: requirements come into effect for all
Wellcome-attributed articles submitted for publication from this date.

*******

ATOM RSS1 RSS2