Image by Michi S from Pixabay

This blog post was written by Agnieszka Marciszewska as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122 at City, University of London

Introduction 

Podcasting has become popular for both amateurs and professional contexts and its research as well as practice in HE continues to grow. Its appeal in HE learning environment is the ability to disseminate knowledge asynchronously, working within the blended-learning approach which allows a degree of flexibility and freedom that in turn links to student motivation (Bolliger, Supanakorn and Boggs, 2010). There is evidence suggesting podcasts are effective in supporting students’ study skills development (Edirisingha and Salmon, 2007). Podcasting is also a tool to increase public impact of research and scholarship (Singer, 2019) and to facilitate HE transformation by enhancing open educational practice (Waldron, Covington and Palmer, 2023). As such, its potential needs to be considered in any team that attempts to support students’ academic skills via open pedagogy approaches. 

In my role in the Academic Skills Team, I predominantly produce student-facing materials. Last year I took on a project in which I designed, produced and recorded a podcast mini-series for my team. The project was based on a number of guest speakers contributing to the episodes I wrote, all of which dealt with students embracing their role at university in some way. My colleagues from City University generously donated their time and collaboration with them meant that current and prospective students would have some information about who’s who. This essay presents a brief review of literature on podcast pedagogy justifying my choices on this project and further presents my reflections on the notion of openness in this context using the five realms of openness by Hodgkinson-Williams (2014). I selected three episodes from the podcast to evidence my points.  

Literature review 

Podcasting has been extensively researched and promoted in HE for their educational content in a range of disciplines (Kao, 2008; Facer, Abdous and Camarena, 2009; Cho, Cosimini and Espinoza, 2017; Killean and Summerville, 2020; Kinkaid, Emard and Senanayake, 2020; Prata, Avelar and Martins, 2021; Kelly et al., 2022). It is also been effective as a tool to develop students’ listening skills (Harahap, 2020). Podcasting supports HE students in their learning as it engages active learning and critical thinking skills, especially for student-led podcasting (McLoughlin and Lee, 2007; Ferrer, Lorenzetti and Shaw, 2020). McGarr (2009) suggests literature names three main reasons for a podcast to be used in HE – one of them is to provide additional guidance and learning material to supplement information to students, which is particularly relevant in this project.  

A number of podcasts have been developed by research institutes and bodies to tackle the issues revolving around research skills, e.g. Royal Geographical Society’s Social Research Methods Podcast (Social Research Methods podcast – RGS). These have typically been aiming its content at graduates and early career researchers. However, relatively little is known about its potential to help UG students develop their skills. There is a wave of podcasts created by amateur social media influencers who record videos with advice for university students and post them on social media platforms. However, such content is not typically based on any pedagogical frameworks or include concrete learning material. While some researchers (Cann, 2007) argue that videos are superior to audio podcasts, the actual purpose of using non-traditional learning tool needs to be considered.  

There is a close relationship between open educational practices and podcasting. Freire’s seminal work on critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970, 1973) focuses on strategies that foster active learning and collaborative construction of knowledge in the spirit of freedom. As such, it Podcasting is also informed by transformative experiential learning (Mezirow, 2003). This is true for student-led podcasts as well as teacher-led ones. As Harter (2019) puts it, “I have no desire to produce podcasts for passive listeners. Instead, I envision podcasts as social activities that involve dialogue between hosts and guests and include the presence of spectators who enter the conversation…”. The aim of a critical pedagogy is to promote social change and a podcast is a strong example of a vehicle that allows it. 

HEs continuously try to make podcasts a part of their online dialogue, which was especially relevant during the pandemic (e.g. The unmissable podcasts and blogposts of the year | LSE Higher Education). Podcasting is common in UK universities (e.g. UCL has a page dedicated to podcasts alone: Podcasts | UCL Minds – UCL – University College London). LEaD has also recently adopted this technique to disseminate knowledge among academics (https://blogs.city.ac.uk/isla/2023/01/27/teaching-here-and-there-a-podcast-resource-for-learning-more-about-hybrid-teaching/). While within City there has been a recent push to engage students via non-traditional VLE-based platforms, such as using social media (e.g. AST’s Instagram account), the AST still does not use a podcast as a regular tool in its work with students. Not discussing tools that can assist learners in developing their study habits creates a gap. In light of the positive literature on podcasting pedagogy I chose to explore the value of the tool. 

Reflections on openness in three sample podcast episodes  

Dynamic connections and accessibility (guest: Catie Tuttle)  

AST have a Moodle page with a robust repository of self-study resources and programme-run and university-wide webinar videos. However, after a detailed review of the repository I concurred there were two issues with it. Firstly, all resources relied on visual skills in some way (e.g. video presentations, narrated PowerPoints, handouts, written guides and checklists). Thus, my aim was to create a resource that would accommodate different needs and learning preferences of students (Ausburn, 2004) and employ an innovative tool not currently used by AST. Audio podcast as a medium suits specific needs of learners (Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler, 2005) and allows to create dynamic inputs (Rajic, 2013), thus broadening AST’s resources. It is underpinned by the departmental objective to increase accessibility of the resources produced by the AST. I also liked the fact that it would allow us to target commuters, who form a large percentage of City students. This determined the length of episodes I chose to record to 45 minutes maximum.  

The second problem was the repository was a static space which needed a new dimension to become more engaging. Inviting students to listen to a podcast, which would link back to the repository and to the social media of guest speakers and the AST, could allow dynamic community-building. “Networked learning promotes connections: between people, between sites of learning and action, between ideas, resources and solutions, across time, space and media” (Networked Learning Editorial Collective, 2021a, p. 319). I wanted to use that concept to blur the rigid duality of learning vs non-learning online environments, demonstrating cultural openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). I decided to focus on research skills in order to collaborate with a City librarian to deliver content that would link to the two teams. Once I started working on the episode, I thought it would be a shame not to link any materials from City Library repository as well as the AST ones. I thought this would add a further dimension to our online community (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2005).  

Going forward, I know I need to continue to network with academics in other teams within City to find out how we could deliver collaborative projects in the future. I plan to support my team in designing similar inclusive activities, in particular engaging in 5R activities (Wiley and Hilton, 2018) and potentially taking the podcast initiative further.  

Shared practice (guest: Ruth Windscheffel) 

While OERs and OEPs are increasingly common in education (Bali et al., 2020), Armellini and Nie (2013) note locating subject-specific OERs poses a challenge. I found many YouTube videos on writing a strong essay, but no academic-led audio podcasts on assessment at university level. Kukulska-Hulme (2012) stresses the importance of adopting mobile technologies in a HE classroom setting. Having a podcast discuss the importance of understanding marking criteria and considering terminology typically used in assignment briefs could allow lecturers to share the resource with their students within a session outlining the details of the assignment they have been set for instance or using it to adopt a flipped classroom, an effective pedagogical strategy replacing a traditional lecture-based model (Guy and Marquis, 2016). This was in my mind when I decided to focus on assessment as a meta-skill. At the time I did not know why this was important to me, frankly, but having researched the topic I realise what was appealing to me was the focus on open practices, sharing ideas that could go beyond a simple open-resource instruction (Cronin, 2017). 

The decision to host the podcast outside the City’s intranet was a major decision, which demonstrates technical openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014); it had significant consequences, e.g. how I approach staff to seek answers to challenging questions and how I convince academics to join the project. I found myself to have to convince some academics to participate, not always successfully, as some feared the resource being made open. I also realised that I embarked on this project due to the confidence from knowing how to apply a Creative Commons licence to the material, which tied in with legal openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). This was one of the reasons I decided to collaborate with a lecturer from LEaD, knowing that would carry some weight with City academics. In this sense I don’t just see the series as a solo project but a resource to be reused and adapted. The aim of this resource was always to encourage collaboration among academics, also in the sense of ease of sharing both internally and externally.   

Going forward, I see that my development in this area can serve students and academics immensely. I hope to create projects that will impact students directly but also indirectly by supporting academics with materials that could be adapted for their cohorts. This will require me to align with open pedagogy attributes (Hegarty, 2015), especially in terms of embedding open educational practice in my work. 

Social justice: OERs and LGBT+ representation (guest: Raf Benato) 

From a social justice perspective, I thought of two different uses for the podcast. Firstly, I wanted this project to predominantly result in an OER – to counter a financial paywall imposed by institutional access; therefore, I decided to host the podcast on a free platform, Soundcloud, to assure financial openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). However, I also aimed to create resource which would allow a free flow of information to students and aspiring students alike. That meant I was trying to simplify the language used in order to avoid a psychological paywall (Figueroa, 2022), which also tied in with pedagogical openness (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014). I see that my aim to empower individuals in this way stems from a critical pedagogy perspective which uses education to help “make the world a more socially just place” (McElroy and Pagowsky, 2016).  

Secondly, I was deeply moved by the homophobic attacks happening on our campus and wanted to provide a space to promote inclusivity and diversity. Following calls for action to promote representation (Cerezo and Bergfeld, 2013; Medium, 2020; The Queerness, 2022) as well as guidance on embedding inclusivity in HE curriculum (Bittker, 2022; National Education Union, 2022a), I decided to use this platform to collaborate with City LGBT+ support network to design an episode which would be relevant to students (and staff) who may not be represented. “Social justice and emancipation are as important as ever, yet they require new theoretical reconfigurations and practices fit for our socio-technological moment” (Networked Learning Editorial Collective, 2021b, p. 327). The LGBT+ Framework (National Education Union, 2022b) advocates a curriculum promoting a sense of belonging and I think that openness of a podcast is a perfect catalyst to share a message of inclusivity.  

Going forward, I would like to find other ways to support the LGBT+ population and other marginalised groups in a meaningful way. 

ConclusionsThe experience of conceiving the mini-podcast series for the AST was very informative in many ways as it showed me my conscious design principles like accessibility affected the final outcome and my intuitive choices, e.g. on the selection of topics were guided by values such as human rights and social justice. As there is evidence combining podcasts with reflective thinking activities has positive outcomes (Yilmaz and Keser, 2016), my future steps are to explore creating additional reflective resources to complement the mini-podcast series I have created.  

References 

Armellini, A. and Nie, M. (2013) ‘Open educational practices for curriculum enhancement’, Open Learning, 28(1), pp. 7–20. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2013.796286. 

Ausburn, L. J. (2004) ‘Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: an American perspective.’, Educational Media International, 41(4), pp. 327–337. doi: doi:10.1080/0952398042000314820. 

Bali, M. et al. (eds) (2020) Open at the Margins: Critical Perspectives on Open Education. Rebus Community. Available at: https://press.rebus.community/openatthemargins/front-matter/table-of-contents/. 

Bittker, B. (2022) ‘LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum as a Path to Better Public Health.’, ABA Human Rights Magazine 47 (3/4). Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/intersection-of-lgbtq-rights-and-religious-freedom/lgbtq-inclusive-curriculum-as-a-path-to-better-public-health/. 

Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S. and Boggs, C. (2010) ‘Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment’, Computers and Education, 55(2), pp. 714–722. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.004. 

Cann, A. J. (2007) ‘Podcasting is Dead. Long Live Video!’, Bioscience Education, 10(1), pp. 1–4. doi: 10.3108/beej.10.c1. 

Cerezo, A. and Bergfeld, J. (2013) ‘Meaningful LGBTQ Inclusion in Schools: The Importance of Diversity Representation and Counterspaces’, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), pp. 355–371. doi: 10.1080/15538605.2013.839341. 

Cho, D., Cosimini, M. and Espinoza, J. (2017) ‘Podcasting in medical education: A review of the literature’, Korean Journal of Medical Education, 29(4), pp. 229–239. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2017.69. 

Cronin, C. (2017) ‘Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(5), pp. 15–34. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096. 

Edirisingha, P. and Salmon, G. (2007) ‘Pedagogical models for podcasts in higher education’, in Proceedings of the EDEN Conference, pp. 3–8. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Pedagogical+models+for+podcasts+in+higher+education#0. 

Facer, B. R., Abdous, M. and Camarena, M. M. (2009) ‘The Impact of Academic Podcasting on Students’ Learning Outcomes’, in Marriott, R. de C. V. and Torres, P. L. (eds) Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition. IGI Global, pp. 339–351. 

Ferrer, I., Lorenzetti, L. and Shaw, J. (2020) ‘Podcasting for social justice: exploring the potential of experiential and transformative teaching and learning through social work podcasts’, Social Work Education, 39(7), pp. 849–865. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2019.1680619. 

Figueroa, M. (2022) ‘Podcasting past the paywall: How diverse media allows more equitable participation in linguistic science’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, pp. 40–46. doi: 10.1017/S0267190521000118. 

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. 

Freire, P. (1973) Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum. 

Guy, R. and Marquis, G. (2016) ‘The Flipped Classroom: A Comparison Of Student Performance Using Instructional Videos And Podcasts Versus The Lecture-Based Model Of Instruction’, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 13, pp. 1–13. doi: 10.28945/3461. 

Harahap, S. (2020) ‘PODCAST IMPACTS ON STUDENTS’ LISTENING SKILL: A CASE STUDY BASED ON STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS.’, Jurnal Inovasi Penelitian, 1(4), pp. 891–900. doi: https://doi.org/10.47492/jip.v1i4.166. 

Harter, L. M. (2019) ‘Storytelling in acoustic spaces: Podcasting as embodied and engaged scholarship.’, Health Communication, 34(1), pp. 125–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1517549. 

Hegarty, B. (2015) ‘Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources’, Educational Technology, (August), pp. 3–13. 

Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2014) ‘Degrees of ease: Adoption ofOER, open textbooks and MOOCs in the global South.’, in Symposium conducted at 2nd Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: Beyond Advocacy, Research and Policy, OER Asia. Penang, Malaysia. 

Kao, I. (2008) ‘Using video podcast to enhance students’ learning experience in engineering’, in Proceedings of 115th Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition, pp. 1–10. Available at: http://www.asee.org/activities/organizations/zones/proceedings/zone1/2008/Professional/ASEE12008_0131_paper.pdf. 

Kelly, J. M. et al. (2022) ‘Learning Through Listening: A Scoping Review of Podcast Use in Medical Education’, Academic Medicine, 97(7), pp. 1079–1085. 

Killean, R. and Summerville, R. (2020) ‘Creative podcasting as a tool for legal knowledge and skills development’, The Law Teacher, 54(1), pp. 31–42. doi: 10.1080/03069400.2019.1568675. 

Kinkaid, E., Emard, K. and Senanayake, N. (2020) ‘The Podcast-as-Method?: Critical Reflections on Using Podcasts to Produce Geographic Knowledge’, Geographical Review, 110(1–2), pp. 78–91. doi: 10.1111/gere.12354. 

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012) ‘How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning?’, The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), pp. 247–254. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002. 

Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Traxler, J. (eds) (2005) Mobile Learning: a handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge. 

McElroy, K. and Pagowsky, N. (eds) (2016) Critical Library Pedagogy Handbook, Volume One: Essays and Workbook Activities. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. 

McGarr, O. (2009) ‘A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the traditional lecture’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), pp. 309–321. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1136. 

McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2007) ‘Listen and learn: A systematic review of the evidence that podcasting supports learning in higher education.’, in Montgomerie, C. and Seale, J. (eds) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007–World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, pp. 1669–1677. 

Medium (2020) Representation Matters: The Impact of Inclusive Education & Teaching LGBTQ+ History., Medium. 

Mezirow, J. (2003) ‘Transformative learning as discourse.’, Journal of Transformative Education, 1, pp. 58–63. 

National Education Union (2022a) ‘LGBT+ inclusion guidance for schools and colleges’. London. 

National Education Union (2022b) LGBT+ inclusion LGBT+ Framework. Available at: https://neu.org.uk/latest/library/lgbt-inclusion. 

Networked Learning Editorial Collective, N. (2021a) ‘Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition’, Postdigital Science and Education, 3(2), pp. 312–325. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8. 

Networked Learning Editorial Collective, N. (2021b) ‘Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition.’, Postdigital Science and Education, 3, pp. 326–369. Available at: chrome-extension://dagcmkpagjlhakfdhnbomgmjdpkdklff/enhanced-reader.html?openApp&pdf=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2F10.1007%2Fs42438-021-00222-y.pdf. 

Prata, N., Avelar, K. and Martins, H. C. (2021) ‘Podcast: a research trajectory and emerging themes’, in Congresso Brasileiro de Ciências da Comunicação, da Intercom. ociedade Brasileira de Estudos Interdisciplinares da Comunicação. Available at: https://doi.org/10.34629/cpublica.67. 

Preece, J. and Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2005) ‘Online Communities: Design, Theory, and Practice’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). 

Rajic, S. (2013) ‘Educational use of podcast’, in The Fourth International Conference on e-learning, pp. 90–94. 

Singer, J. B. (2019) ‘Podcasting as social scholarship: A tool to increase the public impact of scholarship and research’, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(4), pp. 571–590. doi: 10.1086/706600. 

The Queerness (2022) The importance of LGBTQ+ representation in Higher Education., The Queerness. Available at: https://thequeerness.com/2022/11/17/the-importance-of-lgbtq-representation-in-higher-education/. 

Waldron, L. M., Covington, B. and Palmer, S. (2023) ‘Critical pedagogy, counterstorytelling, and the interdisciplinary power of podcasts.’, Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. doi: 10.1080/15505170.2023.2169972. 

Wiley, D. and Hilton, J. (2018) ‘Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy’, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). 

Yilmaz, F. G. K. and Keser, H. (2016) ‘The impact of reflective thinking activities in e-learning: A critical review of the empirical research’, Computers and Education, 95, pp. 163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.006. 

The mini-podcast series for AST: openness from a social justice perspective. © 2024 by Agnieszka Marciszewska is licensed under CC BY 4.0  

This blog post is written by Ami Pendergrass who is a MSc student in Library and Information Science at City and recently completed my module EDM122. Her essay is on the introduction of Rights Retention Strategies to Open Access in Higher Education.  She writes……

As a current Library and Information Science (LIS) Student, I am learning of the importance of how my colleagues and I need to be at the forefront of determining the future of our library services.  One of the key topics of discussion is Open Access (OA).  OA is the mechanism that makes research publications freely available, free of charge, and free from most copyright restrictions to anyone who can benefit from them (see JISC, 2019; City, 2023a; Creative Commons, 2024).  In simple terms, OA is the way to bring the depth of research and analysis out from behind (mostly expensive) paywalls and share it.  This benefits not only fellow researchers who can learn and build from it, but the public at large, where people can use it to create new ideas, change opinions or even save lives.

In the case of higher education (HE), one of the challenges of OA, however, has been in finding a long-lasting working relationship and strategy between HE, authors, and academic publishers that simultaneously provides that kind of necessary access while also mitigating the significant impact it will have on publishers and publishing models (Moskovkin et al., 2022, p. 176; SPARC Europe, 2023).  An area of keen interest to me as both a LIS student and a former lawyer and negotiator is the recent adaptation of a Rights Retention Strategy or RRS by HE institutions in the UK as a tool to force OA quicker.  RRS is a process that uses Creative Commons licensing to assign copyright, giving a way for authors to ensure that they can deposit their work where they see fit including OA which is still being limited by many academic publishers.

As someone who plans on working in this space as a librarian, understanding this issue for myself and for my users is critical.  Below, I will discuss the background of OA and how HE institutions have moved to RRS as a tactic to bring OA quicker.  I will then provide my views on RRS as a strategy and what we as librarians can be doing to help support our users in manoeuvring through this potentially complicated process.

A Brief History of OA and Transformative Agreements

Before we can talk about what rights retention strategy (RRS) is, it helps to understand where we’ve been.  OA itself was born at the cross-section of several big issues.  First, a large portion of important research projects are publicly funded.  However, with the shift of published academic research from print to digital, much of that publicly funded research came to be behind paywalls, which made access to it by other researchers (and sometimes even the authors themselves) difficult and expensive (see City 2023a; REF, 2023; Plan S, 2021).  This would mean that research may never be acted upon or could be duplicated (Moskovkin et al., 2022, p. 176).  And as became immediately apparent with COVID19, resolving complicated, international issues meant needing access to the latest research quickly and cost-effectively to save lives (Moskovkin et al., 2022, p. 176; SPARC Europe, 2023).  Many funders, including COAlition S and UK Research and Innovation, now require OA publication as a result (Plan S, 2021; REF, 2023; City 2023a; City 2023b).  Second, HE institutions and libraries were dealing with the clash between an astronomical rise of subscription journal prices (with one statistic showing an eightfold increase in costs from 1984 to 2010) and shrinking budgets that put pressure to bring those costs down (Borrego et al., 2021, p. 216).  A transition to OA was seen as the solution to both problems.

To find a ‘middle ground’, HE institutions and academic publishers (who were not already OA) negotiated an arrangement called a transformative agreement (TA’s) to help those publishers who were closed access (or whose material was behind a subscription paywall) to ‘transform’ from subscription to fully OA (see City 2023a; REF, 2023; Plan S, 2021).  TAs have developed into three main types:

• Pre-transformative – this is where the journal would still have a paywall but would allow a limited number of articles to be published OA, usually by using a discount or voucher system to track.
• Partially-transformative – this is where the journal would offer two types of fees, a ‘read’ fee or the normal subscription fee and a ‘publish’ fee or what is referred to as an article processing fee or APC to publish OA (and these too are usually limited in number).
• Fully-transformative – this is where the journal would provide a single fee for both subscription and APC and this would allow for unlimited OA publication.

(Borrego et al., 2021, p. 216).  These types of TAs (above) created in many cases a new type of journal, the ‘hybrid’ journal, where the journal was partially OA and partially subscription.  These hybrid journals created two main routes to OA publishing: green access (which while free, can subject the author/institution to a publisher embargo period or a limitation on the number of articles that are eligible for OA publication); or gold access (which has no limits (such as embargos) but is a ‘pay to publish’ model where APCs are required) (City 2023a; City, 2023b).

TA’s, and the hybrid journals created as a result, were initially viewed as a temporary solution to promote an orderly transition from the historic subscription model to OA.   However, the transition has been slow, expensive, and not exactly temporary (Borrego et al., 2021, pp. 219, 226; Plan S, 2021; Moskovkin et al., 2022, p. 169).  An example of this can be seen with the lack of impact of article processing costs (APC) driving down the costs of overall fees.  APCs were to provide a transitional fee arrangement that shifted the cost from subscription to publishing so that works could be published OA sooner rather than later (Asai, 2023, p. 5166).  The idea was that the ‘fees’ would be constant while OA publishing would increase, ultimately resulting in subscription fees decreasing and being replaced by APC (Asai, 2023, p. 5166).  However, as multiple studies show (Asai, 2023; Borrego et al., 2021; Moskovkin et al., 2022) these fee arrangements effectively functioned as a ‘double dip’ for publishers, requiring universities to pay to publish while simultaneously paying again a subscription fee (which seemed to be ever increasing) to access the same article.   Far from being cost neutral, hybrid journals were increasing costs (see Moskovkin et al., 2022, p. 167; Parmhed and Säll, 2023, p. 6).

Enter Rights Retention Strategy

As it became apparent that transformative agreements were becoming more transfixed, HE institutions began to look for new solutions to promote OA publication, while addressing the continued increase in costs.  One of those ‘solutions’ is the adaptation of rights retention strategies (RRS).  Under most academic institution’s RRS policies, authors are asked to declare a Creative Commons license called a CC BY in the acknowledgement and cover letter of the authors accepted manuscript, prior to submission to a journal (City, 2023a; City, 2023b: Rumsey, 2022; UCL 2021).   A CC BY license enables a work to be re-used, distributed, remixed, adapted, and build upon by anyone, so long as it includes attribution to the author (Creative Commons, 2019).  The upfront notice to publishers plus the adaptation of the CC BY license, in essence, should mean that the author is free to distribute their work openly and that the publisher cannot override assignment through a subsequent agreement (UCL, 2021; Plan S, 2024).

So, why this tactic?  It could be argued that RRS was born out of an old problem.  One aspect of the old subscription model was the assignment of full copyright to publishers (exclusivity) as pre-condition for publication, which had significant impact in not only stripping authors from their intellectual property but also financial implications in locking HE institutions into having to pay for a subscription for the same authors to access their own material, ‘arguably a form of academic exploitation’ (Rumsey, 2022).  RRS is a pushback against publishers requiring authors to agree to exclusivity by allowing authors to retain their copyright using Creative Commons licensing, with the goal of immediate publication without embargo and bypassing APCs (Plan S, 2020; City, 2023a, Rumsey, 2022; n8 Research Partnership, 2023; Moore, 2023, p. 1).  RRS restores control to the author on ‘when, how and to whom research findings are disseminated’, maintaining ownership where it belongs, with the author and not a third-party provider (Rumsey 2022).  RRS is not new; universities, such as Harvard (the original RRS model) have had an RRS policy since 2008 (Rumsey, 2022; Moore, 2023, p.3).

Is RRS the ‘Opening’ We Need and How can Libraries Support ? 

As with any new ‘thing’, there are positives and negatives.  RRS can have a positive impact in not only speeding up OA publication but by serving as an effective wedge issue to gather the HE institutions and publishers back to the table to find a better way to bring balance between reasonable access and reasonable compensation (Moore, 2023, p. 7).  However, RRS is not without problems.  Rightly or wrongly, many publishers are viewing the move to RRS as a direct violation of their service agreements and that has placed authors in a difficult situation between the publishers who do not support it and the funders who are increasingly demanding it (Khoo, 2021).   The recent Cambridge and Edinburgh pilot study of RRS provides a good example of the ‘trouble’ authors are facing.  In response to the uptick in the use of RRS, the studies found that publishers have increased desk rejections; rerouted works to OA or less prestigious journals; provided incorrect or misleading advice; presented fees at the last minute; or coerced authors into signing their copyright away anyway ( Khoo, 2021, p. 3; Rumsey 2022; University of Cambridge, 2022; Open Scholarship, 2022).  However, the fight is really between HE institutions, the funders, and the publishers who, like it or not, do have a legitimate (though overpriced) function to deliver, not the authors themselves.  Asking the author to ‘hold the line’ is a bit akin to asking the child of two warring parents in a divorce to provide the solution to all the family’s marital woes (see Khoo, 2021 and Moore, 2023).

As a future librarian on the ground (and hopefully at the table), I offer a few suggestions.  First, from the bargaining standpoint (and my old lawyer days), RRS is a great starting point but, arguably, what RRS is doing is using copyright to bypass aspects of these TAs that HE institutions do not like. This is a blunt instrument that in the long term may damage our relationship with publishers.  What we ultimately need is better agreements that align charges to actual delivery by publishers (see Borrego et al.,2021; Khoo, 2021; SPARC Europe, 2023; Moskovkin et al., 2022).  So RRS is a means, not an end.  HE institutions should endeavour, as soon as possible, to work together to get back to the table and use RRS as a wedge to promote agreement on a better vision and longer-term future for both.  We ultimately still need each other and we only get there by talking.

However, talks and negotiations take enormous time and effort.  As a librarian, to support our users now, the quickest and most valuable thing we can do is to provide in-depth training on copyright that helps users understand their rights and how to tactically use their assignment in copyright to get the deal they want.  I believe anytime we ask someone to assign a legal right away, we should support them to the fullest with education and tactics so that they can make educated and sound decisions, whether they use Creative Commons or sign an exclusivity agreement.  We should also partner with our HE librarian counterparts across UK institutions to study RRS best practices, not only from the standpoint of how we manage RRS as librarians but also to help our users to understand what works and what does not as they interact with publishers.  RRS policies by themselves is not enough to really support our authors.  Training and best practice guidance is vital to make this work.

RRS may not be the opening we hoped for but it is a wedge in the door to a better future.  I believe as a librarian, our biggest contribution is to help educate and advocate for what RRS is ultimately trying to achieve, a long-lasting partnership with our publishers for an OA future.

This article is published with a CC BY license that enables re-users to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the author.  This license is for commercial use only.  For mor information, see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Works Cited:

Asai, S. (2023) “Does double dipping occur? The case of Wiley’s hybrid journals”, Scientometrics, 128(9) pp. 5159-5168.  Available at: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04800-8 (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

Borrego, Á, Anglada, L., and Abadal, E. (2021) “Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access?”, Learned publishing,  34(2), pp. 216-232.  Available at: https://www.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347 (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

City, University of London (2023a) Understanding Open Access.  Available at:  https://libguides.city.ac.uk/understanding-oa (Accessed: 11/01/2024).

City, University of London (2023b) Open Access Policy.  Available at:  https://libraryservices.city.ac.uk/about/policies/compliance/open-access-policy (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

Creative Commons (2019) About CC Licenses.  Available at: https://www.creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ (Accessed: 11/01/2024).

Creative Commons (2024) Open Access. Available at:  https://www.creativecommons.org/about/open-access/ (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

JISC (2019) An Introduction to Open Access.  Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/an-introduction-to-open-access (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

Khoo, S.Y. (2021) “The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution”, Insights, the UKSG journal,  34(1).

Moore, S.A. (2023) “The Politics of Rights Retention”, Publications (Basel), 11(2) pp. 28.  Available at: https://www.doi.org/10.3390/publications11020028 (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

Moskovkin, V.M., Saprykina, T.V., and Boichuk, I.V. (2022) “Transformative agreements in the development of open access”, Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, (34) 3, pp. 165-207.  Available at: https://www.doi.org/10-1080-1941126X.2022.20999000 (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

N8 Research Partnership (2023) Why Northern Universities are Taking a Stand on Rights Retention. Available at: n8research.org.uk/why-northern-universities-are taking-astand-on-rights-retention/ (Accessed: 11/01/2024).

Open Scholarship (2022) Rights Retention Policy: An Update after 9 months. Available at: https://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/openscholarship/2022/10/14/rights-retention-policy-an-update-after-9-months/ (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

Parmhed, S. & Säll, J. (2023) “Transformative agreements and their practical impact: a librarian perspective”, Insights, the UKSG journal, 36(12).  Available at: https://www.doi.org/10.1629/uksg.612 (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

Plan S (2020) cOALition S develops “Rights Retentions Strategy” to safeguard researchers’ intellectual ownership rights and suppress unreasonable embargo periods.  Available at:  coalition-s.org/coalition-s-develops-rights-retention-strategy/ (Accessed:  09/01/2024).

Plan S (2021) Principles and Implementation.  Available at: https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/ (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

Plan S (2024) Plan S Rights Retention Strategy.  Available at: https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/ (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

REF (2023) REF2021: Overview of open access policy and guidance.  Available at: https://archive.ref.ac.uk/media/1228/open_access_summary_v1_0.pdf (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

Rumsey, S. (2022) Reviewing the Rights Retentions Strategy – a Pathway to Wider Open Access? Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/10/26/reviewing-the-rights-retention-strategy-a-pathway-to-wider-open-access (Accessed: 23 January 2023).

SPARC Europe (2023) Opening Knowledge: Retaining Rights and Open Licensing in Europe 2023. Available at: https://www.knowledgerights21.org/reports/opening-knowledge-retaining-rights-and-open-licensing-in-europe-2023/ (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

UCL (2021) Wellcome, transformative agreements and rights retention.  Available at: blogs.ucl.ac.uk/open-access/2021/03/05/wellcom-transformative-agreements-and-rights-retention/ (Accessed: 12/01/2024).

University of Cambridge (2022) Rights Retention: Publisher Responses to the University’s Pilot.  Available at: https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=3361 (Accessed: 13/01/2024).

This Photo by Nick Shockey is licensed under CC BY-SA

This post was written by Ravi Ladani as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122 at City, University of London

Evidence based practice (EBP) is a foundational cornerstone in my working life as an optometrist, as it is for all healthcare practitioners. In my role as a lecturer, it is a skill I (and my colleagues) teach, as well as it influencing the content that I teach. When learning about open practices, I was intrigued by the impact that open access could have on EBP, not only in optometry but in healthcare as a whole.

What is EBP and open access?

Evidence-based practice (EBP) in healthcare involves the combination of clinical expertise, patient’s values, and the best evidence to inform clinical decision making to provide the best clinical outcome or management for a patient¹. Fundamental elements to employ best evidence are the ability to search and synthesise information, but importantly how available is the best information, i.e. is it accessible².

Open access is defined by the Joint Information Committee Systems (JISC) as “making research publications freely available so anyone can benefit from reading and using research”³.

So why is open access important for EBP?

It is useful to consider what we mean by “best” and “available” evidence. Traditionally, knowledge has been imparted via textbooks and lectures. However, these mediums are quickly outdated⁴. They are still valuable tools to provide theoretical and foundational knowledge, but do not provide the most recent knowledge, and therefore not the best knowledge.

Research articles allow the most up to date research to be published, which is a vital step to EBP⁵, but this leads to the consideration of access. When I now reflect on how I have accessed research in my career to date, there are two distinct time periods. Since becoming a lecturer, I have had the privilege of accessing a large range of articles and databases via an institutional login.

Studies have shown that most peer-reviewed research has traditionally been published in subscription based journals⁶, and that having institutional access allows access to 75% of articles that would not otherwise be available unless one was willing to pay for them⁷. The reason for this is due to the extreme costs associated with subscription⁸.

Healthcare practitioners that do not have access via an institution, as was the case for myself earlier in my career, are faced with theses subscription costs or paywalls⁶. Subscription costs are unfortunately expensive, Furthermore, should the article not actually be what the practitioner was after, refunds cannot be requested⁵.

To me, this highlighted some obstacles to EBP. Firstly, by holding information behind a fee, the availability of the “best” research is reduced, therefore limiting the pool of evidence that a practitioner would ideally need to make the best clinical decision. An article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) showed that open access publications received 89% more full-text downloads, 42% more PDF downloads and 23% more unique visitors⁹, highlighting the link between open access and availability. This issue is exacerbated for practitioners in low income countries. However, many publications will be made accessible to countries in low income countries, but raises the question of how well known it is.

Secondly, students benefit from institutional access whilst studying at university. We teach students how to access the information, how to reinforce there studies with the latest research, and how to use this research and evidence to inform their clinical decision making. Once a student has left education, they have lost a significant amount of resource, and their knowledge as a result can potentially become quickly outdated too.

Thirdly, an element of EBP is the patient’s values and decisions. Some patients may choose to search for evidence themselves. They face the same issues that healthcare practitioners have with access, but they also potentially could be faced with another problem. Should the practitioner have access to more recent research than the patient, the patient maybe conflicted with what information to use. However, should all evidence be open access, patients and practitioners will have access to the same information and therefore patients will have more confidence in the evidence (as they can find it themselves should they wish).

However, publishing an open access article does not guarantee the reader will have addressed the availability issues completely. JISC highlights two types of open access publishing: Gold and Green open access³.

Gold access allows the fully published article to be immediately available without the requirement of a fee or subscription by the viewer. This allows the latest research to be made available immediately, but there is an article processing fee (APC) instead that the researcher must pay which can be expensive and therefore a potential barrier.

Green open access involves fully published articles being made available under a subscription based model, but also allows accepted manuscripts to be uploaded or self-archived in a repository. This can involve an embargo, that once expired allows the fully published article to be made freely available. This has the advantage of not involving an APC. The disadvantage it has is that repositories can be less discoverable, and therefore if an embargo is in place, it limits the availability of the article until the embargo has ended. This means that as healthcare professionals, it is important that we are equipped with the digital literacy skills to find these studies on resources such as Google Scholar, and as educators we provide our students with the required skills.

The BMJ also identifies another model – “Diamond” or “Platinum”¹⁰. This involves fully published articles being made immediately available without a direct publishing fee. This would allow the most recent evidence to be most freely available and therefore has the potential to be most useful to EBP.

Another factor to consider with open access and EBP, is what else can be done with the research, other than provide clinical evidence as soon as possible to all. JISC identifies the importance of allowing the research to be re-used³. Open access has the potential to accelerate research, provide stronger evidence in the form of systematic reviews, provide more enhance and up to date clinical management guidelines and highlight more quickly further areas of research⁵. The move to open access can therefore promote EBP and better research, which therefore promotes open access, thus acting in a self-propelled mechanism.

What can be done to promote the benefits of open access to EBP?

Academic promotion has traditionally had requirements that include the publication in high impact journals which can often non-open access⁶. I find it ironic that as a healthcare educator in the UK who promotes and teaches EBP, a facet that we judged on does not promote EBP.

Researchers will often consider impact factor and the quality of peer review before publishing¹¹, and it was often perceived that open access journals lack impact factor which would affect academic promotion¹². This provides a dilemma to researchers in that should they publish for promotion or publish to allow their research to be more readily available, and therefore contribute further towards EBP. However, it is also important that we realise that some open access journals now have an impact factor¹³.

One of the influences on the impact factor (amongst many others) are the number of citations. The evidence of the effect that open access has on citations is often contested, with some suggesting it has very little impact¹², whilst others indicating that it has a positive impact^11,14. However, they all indicate the publishing in open access does not reduce the number of citations, and therefore would not reduce the impact of the article. It is therefore fundamental that academic institutions continue to realise that academic promotion should not be negatively affected by publishing in open access.

In recent years, The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and a group of national research organisations in Europe have implemented policies that require studies to be published on open access platforms or journals^15,16. This is a significant policy that will improve the access to the latest research so it directly promotes EBP, but will also cause more research institutions to rethink their own policies on promotion.

How will this impact my future practice?

When I consider how open access will affect my work with evidence based practice, I need to split it into two elements, as a lecturer and as an optometrist working in primary care.

As a lecturer, I teach students how they can use EBP very generically at the start of their degree, but also more specifically to individual fields later on. In the early stages, I look at promoting the reason of EBP and situations where it is useful, and teach the use of research databases, but I must confess that I never considered access what I teach. As highlighted earlier, I and students have the privilege of institutional access, but I now feel the need to prioritise how to search for open access research instead, so that this becomes the normal way for to find the information they need, even in their normal life.

It also led me to look at the resources I use in my teaching when discussing individual topics, as well as the sources of information I promote the use. Resources such as the Cochrane Library allow free access to everyone in the UK and many other countries (including low income countries)¹⁷, are particularly useful. The College of Optometrist Clinical Management Guidelines¹⁸ are also useful. Although the articles they use are not always open access, the evidence based detailed information that they provide on each eye condition is, and again will be a resource I will promote. This is something I think students will benefit from as they may not always find the information they need openly, and should therefore be able to use tools that are a “compromise”.

It is vital that all healthcare educators take this approach. Newly graduated professionals often take the habits of what they are taught, so if more are taught to use and search in open access resources, they will pass these practices on too.

As a practitioner, open access will also influence the speed at which I find clinical information. My first thought will be to search for open access articles as I know I will not be faced with the potential of pay or subscription walls. This will lead to patients being given more accurate information sooner, which for some could lead to faster diagnosis and treatment, which can give a better prognosis.

On publishing of this work, I have decided that it is important to provide it with a Creative Commons license, specifically CC-BY (attribution). In order for the importance of open practice to EBP to be fully realised by as many practitioners or academics as possible, I think it is extremely valuable for this work to be shared and developed upon as much as possible by all, regardless if they are affiliated with a commercial entity or not. Although ideally I would like future work to be used as openly and freely as this one, I have chosen not include the Share-Alike licence as this may restrict how this work can be combined with work with other licences¹⁹, reducing the span as to who can build upon it.

References

1. Dawes M, Summerskill W, Glasziou P et al., 2005. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice BMC Medical Education 5(1) 1-7
2. Paci, M., Faedda, G., Ugolini, A. and Pellicciari, L., 2021. Barriers to evidence-based practice implementation in physiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 33(2), p.mzab093.
3. An Introduction to Open Access. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/an-introduction-to-open-access [Accessed: 04/01/2024]
4. Kundart, J. Open access publishing: opportunities and challenges. Optometric Education, Volume 38, Number 3/ Summer 2013, p 89-91
5. Nick, J. (2011). Open Access Part I: The Movement, The Issues, and The Benefits. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.3912/ojin.vol17no01ppt02.
6. Lawton, A. and Flynn, E., 2015. The Value of Open Access Publishing to Health and Social Care Professionals in Ireland. Available from: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/73/lawton-flynn/
7. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
8. What Is “Open Access”? – Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-open-access [Accessed: 04/01/2024]
9. Davis, P.M., Lewenstein, B.V., Simon, D.H., Booth, J.G. and Connolly, M.J., 2008. Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMj, 337.
10. Frequently asked questions on open access. BMJ https://www.bmj.com/company/openaccess/open-access-faq/ [Accessed: 04/01/2024]
11. Nagaraj, M.N. and Bhandi, M.K., 2017. Physics Researchers’ Perception of Advantages and Disadvantages of Open Access Journals: A study.
12. Forrester, A., 2015. Barriers to open access publishing: Views from the library literature. Publications, 3(3), pp.190-210.
13. Björk, B.C., 2013. Open access—Are the barriers to change receding?. Publications, 1(1), pp.5-15.
14. Huang, C.-K. (Karl) et al., 2024. Open access works – 420 million citations show OA outputs are cited by more researchers from more places, Impact of Social Sciences. Available from: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/01/30/open-access-works-420-million-citations-show-oa-outputs-are-cited-by-more-researchers-from-more-places/ [Accessed: 19/01/2024]
15. New Open Access policy for NIHR funded researchers – National Institute for Health and Care Research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/new-open-access-policy-for-nihr-funded-researchers/29244 [Accessed: 19/01/2024]
16. What is cOALITION S? – Plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/about/ [Accessed: 19/01/2024]
17. Access options for the Cochrane Library – the Cochrane Library online. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/help/access [Accessed: 19/01/2024]
18. How to use the clinical management guidelines – The College of Optometrist. Available from: https://www.college-optometrists.org/clinical-guidance/clinical-management-guidelines/how-to-use-the-clinical-management-guidelines [Accessed: 19/01/2024]
19. Redhead C, 2015, Why CC-BY? Available from https://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/ [Accessed 19/01/2024]