of Cukurova Anesthesia and Surgical Scienses(JoCASS) adheres
to the Budapest Open Access Initiative and defines its Open Access policy
according to the definition developed in the original BOAI:
access” to [peer-reviewed research literature], we mean its free availability
on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy,
distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl
them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other
lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than
those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only
constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in
this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work
and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
Recommendations for the next 10 [http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations]
1. On policy
institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that
peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are
deposited in the institution’s designated repository. (See recommendation 3.1
on institutional repositories.)
- Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of
acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
- University policies should respect faculty freedom to submit new
work to the journals of their choice.
- University policies should encourage but not require publication in
OA journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between
depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.
- When possible, university policies should be adopted by faculty
vote, should require immediate OA, and should welcome repository deposits
even when not required (e.g. datasets, conference presentations, books or
book chapters, work published before the policy's adoption, and so on).
- When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred
terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or
non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can
be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right
to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional
repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of
rights for any given publication).
institution of higher education offering advanced degrees should have a policy
assuring that future theses and dissertations are deposited upon acceptance in
the institution's OA repository. At the request of students who want to publish
their work, or seek a patent on a patentable discovery, policies should grant
reasonable delays rather than permanent exemptions.
research funding agency, public or private, should have a policy assuring that
peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles reporting funded
research are deposited in a suitable repository and made OA as soon as
- Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of
acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
- When publishers will not allow OA on the funder’s terms, funder
policies should require grantees to seek another publisher.
- If funder policies allow embargoes before new work becomes OA, the
embargoes should not exceed six months. Policies should allow no embargoes
at all for uncopyrightable work.
- Funders should treat publication costs as research costs, and should
help grantees pay reasonable publication fees at fee-based OA journals.
- When possible, funder policies should require libre OA, preferably
under a CC-BY license or equivalent.
- A repository is suitable for this purpose when it provides OA,
supports interoperability with other repositories, and take steps toward
long-term preservation. The funder’s choice should be determined by
ongoing research into questions such as which choice best fosters the
deposit of covered articles, the utility of deposits, the convenience of
funders and authors, and incentives for the further growth of OA.
university and funder OA policies should require deposit in a suitable OA
repository between the date of acceptance and the date of publication. The
metadata should be deposited as soon as it is available and should be OA from
the moment of deposit. The full-text should be made OA as soon as the
repository has permission to make it OA.
1.5. We discourage
the use of journal impact factors as surrogates for the quality of journals,
articles, or authors. We encourage the development of alternative metrics for
impact and quality which are less simplistic, more reliable, and entirely open
for use and reuse.
- Insofar as universities, funding agencies, and research assessment
programs need to measure the impact of individual articles, they should
use article-level metrics, not journal-level metrics.
- We encourage research on the accuracy of the new metrics. As the
research shows them to be useful and trustworthy, we encourage their use
by universities (when evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure),
funding agencies (when evaluating applicants for funding), research
assessment programs (when assessing research impact), and publishers (when
promoting their publications).
- We encourage the development of materials to explain how journal
impact factors have been misused, and how alternative metrics can better
serve the purposes for which most institutions have previously used impact
- As impact metrics improve, we encourage further study into the
question whether OA and OA policies increase research impact.
Universities with institutional repositories should require deposit in the
repository for all research articles to be considered for promotion, tenure, or
other forms of internal assessment and review.
- Similarly, governments performing research assessment should require
deposit in OA repositories for all research articles to be reviewed for
national assessment purposes.
- Neither policy should be construed to limit the review of other
sorts of evidence, or to alter the standards of review.
Publishers who do not provide OA should at least permit it through their formal
- Publishers should refrain from lobbying against governments acting
in the public interest, and refrain from lobbying against research
institutions acting in the interests of researchers and research.
Publishers should disavow lobbying campaigns carried out in their name by
their professional or trade associations against the public interest and
the interests of researchers and research.
- The minority of subscription-based publishers who do not yet allow
author-initiated green OA, without payment or embargo, should adopt the
- We remind researchers that they need not work as authors, editors,
or referees for publishers who act against their interests.
licensing and reuse
recommend CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the
publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.
- OA repositories typically depend on permissions from others, such as
authors or publishers, and are rarely in a position to require open
licenses. However, policy makers in a position to direct deposits into
repositories should require open licenses, preferably CC-BY, when they
- OA journals are always in a position to require open licenses, yet
most of them do not yet take advantage of the opportunity. We recommend
CC-BY for all OA journals.
- In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that
gratis access is better than priced access, libre access is better than
gratis access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than
libre under more restrictive open licenses. We should achieve what we can
when we can. We should not delay achieving gratis in order to achieve
libre, and we should not stop with gratis when we can achieve libre.
3. On infrastructure
institution of higher education should have an OA repository, participate in a
consortium with a consortial OA repository, or arrange to outsource OA
publishing scholar in every field and country, including those not affiliated
with institutions of higher education, should have deposit rights in an OA
- This will require more institutional repositories or more
disciplinary repositories, or both. It may also require, at least in the
short term, more universal repositories or repositories of last resort for
scholars who don’t have an OA repository in their institution or field.
The interface text in these universal repositories should be available in
3.3. OA repositories
should acquire the means to harvest from and re-deposit to other OA
- Researchers who have reason to deposit into more than one repository
should only have to deposit once. When possible, institutional
repositories should offer to re-deposit articles in disciplinary
repositories requested by authors (e.g. arXiv, PubMed Central, SSRN), and
should harvest or download copies of faculty publications deposited in
repositories should make download, usage, and citation data available to their
authors, and make these data available to the tools computing alternative
impact metrics. Journal publishers should do the same, whether or not their
journals are OA.
- Repositories should share these data with one another in standard
formats, making it possible (for example) for authors to learn the total
downloads for an article on deposit in multiple repositories. No author
and no repository should have interest in blocking re-deposit in an
additional repository simply to preserve an accurate measure of traffic.
Universities and funding agencies should help authors pay reasonable
publication fees at fee-based OA journals, and find comparable ways to support
or subsidize no-fee OA journals.
- In both cases, they should require libre OA under open licenses,
preferably CC-BY licenses or the equivalent, as a condition of their
- Supporting peer-reviewed OA journals in these ways should be a top
priority for any money saved from the cancellation or conversion of
- Supporting peer-reviewed OA journals can be particularly important
for journals with a more limited audience, such as journals focusing on
national law in smaller countries or journals published in a local
language, and for journals where publication fees are inappropriate, such
as review journals which solicit review articles from authors.
subscription-based or non-OA journals permit any kind of self-archiving, or
deposit into OA repositories, they should describe what they permit in precise
human-readable and machine-readable terms, under an open standard. These
descriptions should include at least the version that may be deposited, the
timing of deposits, and the licenses that could be attached to deposited
repositories should provide tools, already available at no charge, to convert
deposits made in PDF format into machine-readable formats such as XML.
institutions, including research funders, should support the development and
maintenance of the tools, directories, and resources essential to the progress
and sustainability of OA.
- The list of essential tools will evolve over time, but includes OA
repositories and journals, free and open-source repository software, free
and open-source journal management software, tools for text- and
data-mining, directories of OA journals and repositories, directories of
university and funder policies, providers of open licenses, digital
preservation services, current awareness services, services for
cross-linking and persistent URLs, and search engines.
- Research institutions should also support the establishment of
worldwide, open standards for metadata and querying that publishers and
repositories could implement to make OA research more discoverable,
retrievable, and useful.
3.9. We should
improve and apply the tools necessary to harvest the references or
bibliographic citations from published literature. The facts about who cited
whom are in the public domain, and should be OA in standard formats for use,
reuse, and analysis. This will assist researchers and research institutions in
knowing what literature exists, even if they don’t have access to it, and in
the development of new metrics for access and impact.
- We urge all publishers to cooperate with this effort.
- We recommend the development of infrastructure where reference data
may be deposited by publishers, authors, volunteers, third-party
entrepreneurs, or software, and where the reference data may be hosted for
should assist in the gathering, organizing, and disseminating of OA metadata in
standard formats for all new and old publications, including non-OA
Scholarly publishers need infrastructure for cross-linking and persistent URLs
based on open standards, available at no charge, and supporting linking and
attribution at arbitrary levels of granularity, such as paragraph-level,
image-level, and assertion-level identification.
encourage the further development of open standards for interoperability, and
tools to implement those standards in OA journals and repositories.
encourage experiments with different methods of post-publication review, and
research into their effectiveness.
- OA through repositories, OA through journals, and OA through books
are all compatible with every kind of traditional pre-publication peer
review, and OA does not presuppose any particular form of peer review. We
recommend experiments with post-publication peer review not because it
will be superior, although it might, but because it would reduce delays
before new work becomes OA and could reduce first-copy costs.
encourage experiments with new forms of the scholarly research “article” and
“book” in which texts are integrated in useful ways with underlying data,
multimedia elements, executable code, related literature, and user commentary.
- We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the digital
medium, and digital networks, for the benefit of research.
- We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the ways in
which OA articles remove access barriers for machines, and not just for
- We encourage the use of open standards and formats to foster these
uses, and research on their effectiveness.
4. On advocacy
4.1. We should
do more to make publishers, editors, referees and researchers aware of
standards of professional conduct for OA publishing, for example on licensing,
editorial process, soliciting submissions, disclosing ownership, and the
handling of publication fees. Editors, referees and researchers should evaluate
opportunities to engage with publishers and journals on the basis of these
standards of professional conduct. Where publishers are not meeting these standards
we should help them improve as a first step.
- As one means for evaluating a new or unknown OA publisher or OA
journal, we recommend that researchers consult the Open Access Scholarly
Publishers Association (OASPA) and its code of conduct. Members of the
association are screened according to this code. Complaints about
OASPA-member publishers and suggestions for improving the code of conduct
should be sent to OASPA.
- We encourage all OA publishers and OA journals to apply best
practices recommended by OASPA or to seek membership in the association,
which would entail a review of their practices and an opportunity to amend
these where necessary.
4.2. We should
develop guidelines to universities and funding agencies considering OA
policies, including recommended policy terms, best practices, and answers to
frequently asked questions.
encourage development of a consolidated resource where it is easy to follow the
progress of OA through the most relevant numbers and graphics. Each bit of
information should be updated regularly, and its provenance or method of
computation clearly indicated.
4.4. The OA
community should act in concert more often. Wherever possible, OA organizations
and activists should look for ways to coordinate their activities and communications
in order to make better use of their resources, minimize duplication of effort,
strengthen the message, and demonstrate cohesion.
- We should create better mechanisms for communicating and
coordinating with one another.
- We should reach out to our academic colleagues, to the academic
press, and the mainstream non-academic press. The academic and
non-academic media are better informed about OA, and more interested in
it, than at any time in our history. This is an opportunity for helping to
educate all stakeholder groups about OA and new proposals to advance it.
worldwide campaign for OA to research articles should work more closely with
the worldwide campaigns for OA to books, theses and dissertations, research
data, government data, educational resources, and source code.
- We should coordinate with kindred efforts less directly concerned
with access to research, such as copyright reform, orphan works, digital
preservation, digitizing print literature, evidence-based policy-making,
the freedom of speech, and the evolution of libraries, publishing, peer
review, and social media.
- We should look for ways to amplify our separate voices when
defending common principles.
4.6. We need
to articulate more clearly, with more evidence, and to more stakeholder groups
the following truths about OA:
- OA benefits research and researchers, and the lack of OA impedes
- OA for publicly-funded research benefits taxpayers and increases the
return on their investment in research. It has economic benefits as well
as academic or scholarly benefits.
- OA amplifies the social value of research, and OA policies amplify
the social value of funding agencies and research institutions.
- The costs of OA can be recovered without adding more money to the
current system of scholarly communication.
- OA is consistent with copyright law everywhere in the world, and
gives both authors and readers more rights than they have under
conventional publishing agreements.
- OA is consistent with the highest standards of quality.
articles published by Journal of Cukurova Anesthesia and Surgical
Scienses(JoCASS) are subject to the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC
information on the conditions of the license please refer to: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
published authors accept the conditions of the license.All copyright, re-publishing and
re-using rights, all intellectual property rights, without any exception,
belongs to the authors of the published manuscript.