Skip to main content

Further considerations: licensing and archiving

  • Use CC licencing for the OtF-funded frontlist and SERUa forShared theE-Resource Understanding (SERU) to govern library access to the backlist. 
  • Use a reputable host for your OA frontlist (if you do not self-host) who will ensure long-term archiving. We have suggestions on the section on 'Organisational Partnerships'. 

Frontlist Licencing:licensing: Useuse Creative Commons 

We strongly recommend using an open-access, Creative Commons licenselicence for front-list open-access content released under the scheme. This is the standard open licence used, and is either mandated or heavily favoured by some funders. The most open version is the 'CC BY' although theythere offerare other more restrictive non-commercial and/or non-derivative versions if necessary.necessary: this will be dictated by your Press policy. 

Backlist Licensing:licensing: Useuse SERU Wherewhere Possible

possible

The terms under which the library can use the backlist package also require their own licencinglicensing agreement. 

While some institutions will require a specific licenses,licence, using the Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) eliminates much legal wrangling and overhead around licensing while working in a good faith capacity.capacity. AllSERU is not actually a licence, it is a NISO best practice shared understanding governed by copyright law. Because SERU is not a licence, legal terms (such as jurisdiction, warranties, and liabilities) are not used. Rather, the SERU statements describe a set of ourcommonly participatingagreed-upon librariesexpectations havefor beenusing happyand toproviding useelectronic resources. While licences are appropriate in many situations, SERU foroffers theiran backlistalternative packages.when both the acquiring institution and the provider are satisfied with this approach.

As the NISO document on SERU describes itself:

"SERU embodies a desire by publishers and libraries for a cooperative and collaborative relationship that recognizes that the provision of timely, high-quality materials and their protection is in the mutual interests of all parties.

SERU offers providers (such as publishers) and acquiring institutions (such as libraries) the opportunity to save both the time and the costs associated with a negotiated and signed licenselicence agreement by agreeing to operate within a framework of shared understanding and good faith. The statements below provide a set of common understandings for providers and acquiring institutions to reference as an alternative to a formal license when conducting business."

NeitherNearly all of our participating libraries have been able to use SERU to govern access to the statementsbacklist packages - the couple of understandinglibraries northat thiswere documentunable constituteto do so and required a licenseslightly agreement.more Becauseformal agreement signed a lightweight licence arranged by Lyrasis, the wording of which mirrored SERU isvery not a license, legal terms (such as jurisdiction, warranties, and liabilities) are not used. Rather, the SERU statements describe a set of commonly agreed-upon expectations for using and providing electronic resources. While licenses are appropriate in many situations, SERU offers an alternative when both the acquiring institution and the provider are satisfied with this approach (see NISO SERU Standing Committee, ‘NISO RP-7-2012, SERU: A Shared Electronic Resource Understanding’, 2012).closely.

In cases where a formal licenselicence is required, the Press must take its own legal advice as to the suitability of any particular clause. However, we recommend that any license provides the following clauses:

  • Term access for the first three years;
  • Perpetual access after three years’ of subscription;
  • An open-access, Creative Commons licenselicence for front-listfrontlist open-open access content releasedfunded underby the scheme.

Digital Preservation and Perpetual Access 

Depending on the specific delivery platform, it may be appropriate to deposit books in third-party platforms, held in trust in case of future Press insolvency. ‘Perpetual access’ as promised by this programme should also mean perpetual access beyond the lifespan of a press. By using robust, third-party digital preservation systems, presses can provide a higher level of guaranteed availability to libraries.

As a Press you will already have plans and processes in place on digital preservation and there is lots of information available through member societies like OASPA, ALPSP, AUP etc.

Delivery of the OA Contentcontent Fundedfunded by OtF

It is imperative that the selection process for open-open access books be transparent and trustworthy. Libraries fear that publishers will select books for the open-open access route that they believe will not sell, thereby implicitly devaluing open access.

We recommend that Opening the Future presses adopt a strict chronological hierarchy for the selection of the next open-open access monograph. In other words, at the moment when sufficient funds have accumulated to make another book open access, the chosen volume should be the book that is next scheduled for publication in the current production schedule, but which hasn’t yet been announced as OA vs. non-OA should be the chosen volume.OA. 

FixedTake Packagesa Shouldlook Notat Changethe Organisational Partnerships section of this toolkit for details on where you can host and promote your OA books.

Avoid 'Double Dipping'

Your new frontlist titles will likely be at first planned as traditionally-sold ‘closed’ books. But as soon as you have accrued enough library support through OtF to fund an OA book, you should change the metadata before any sales are made and move the book to an OA status with any distributors too. This needs to happens well before the book is published: we’ve estimated between 2-3 months is workable. Again, transparency and trust is at the heart of this: if libraries are asked to pay twice through buying a 'closed' copy before it then flips to OA then they will perceive this as double-dipping.   

WhileMany OA publishers continue to sell print editions and digital retail editions of their OA books and indeed the Ithaka S+R Print Revenue and Open Access Monographs Report from September 2023 (written in collaboration with the Association of University Presses) suggests that "OA titles can generate significant print revenue [and] OA titles can generate meaningful digital revenue".

The contents of your backlist packages should not change

Don't be tempted to bait and switch with the backlist package: library members need assurance that they are getting what they originally paid for. Once they have access to a package, don't change its contents or withdraw it isunless temptingthey tocancel. believeThere thatare packagesalso cantechnical beconsiderations reconfigured at will, the ability to deliver custom packages is beholden to the restrictions of external suppliers. For instance,around ensuring consistent metadata is delivered to and from Project MUSE means that once a package has been setup by the remote supplier, it should be fixed permanently. This also allows libraries to ensure that once they have access to a package, it is never withdrawn, unless they cancel.MUSE.

As more members join, frontlist books can gradually be published OA

Fie 3 from the OtF report for infohub.png

If multiple books are on the same production schedule, the Press has latitude to select which book will be OA, but we would urge transparency around this process and for the Press to issue a justificatory statement of the title’s worth in such instances.

All new frontlist titles therefore could be first planned as traditionally-sold ‘closed’ books and as soon as the press has accrued enough library support to fund a book, the metadata should be changed before any sales are made. The distributors should then move the book to an OA status. This should happen well before the book is published.

This process, in which titles are selected prior to being sent to any third-party intermediaries, means that there is a long lead time for Opening the Future presses, before a book is made OA. However, by doing so, we completely avoid any allegations of double dipping through the provision of misleading data about title availability.

Back to top