Skip to main content

Further considerations: licensing and archiving

  • Use CC licencing for the OtF-funded frontlist and a Shared E-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 licensing: use Creative Commons 

We strongly recommend using an open-access, Creative Commons licence 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 there are other more restrictive non-commercial and/or non-derivative versions if necessary: this will be dictated by your Press policy. 

Backlist licensing: use SERU where possible

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

While some institutions will require a specific licence, using the Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) eliminates much legal wrangling and overhead around licensing while working in a good faith capacity. SERU 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 commonly agreed-upon expectations for using and providing electronic resources. While licences are appropriate in many situations, SERU offers an alternative 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 licence agreement by agreeing to operate within a framework of shared understanding and good faith."

Nearly all of our participating libraries have been able to use SERU to govern access to the backlist packages - the couple of libraries that were unable to do so and required a slightly more formal agreement signed a lightweight licence arranged by Lyrasis, the wording of which mirrored SERU very closely.

In cases where a formal licence 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 licence for frontlist open access content funded by 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 content funded by OtF

It is imperative that the selection process for open access books be transparent and trustworthy. Libraries fear that publishers will select books for the 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 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 in the current production schedule, but which hasn’t yet been announced as OA vs. non-OA. 

Take a look at the 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.   

Many 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 unless they cancel. There are also technical considerations around ensuring consistent metadata is delivered to and from Project 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