Impacts and Insights: Supporting Institutional Rights Retention Policies

Jisc’s IRRP Project supports higher education institutions in implementing institutional rights retention policies (IRRPs). Last year, Jisc organised two IRRP Question Time webinars to share information about rights retention and policy development in the UK. We also launched a dedicated IRRP channel to foster conversation, support networks, and share best practices. To understand more about our own approach to this work, and its impact, we decided to undertake some interviews with participants in the webinars.

We discovered that Jisc’s community owned IRRP resources serve as a hub for sharing best practices, exchanging ideas, and discussing challenges. The shared committee papers, existing policies, prior notification letters, and publisher contact details save institutions both time and effort. Moreover, knowing how others have handled legal issues saved on formal advice costs. 

Evaluating the impact of this work 

With the completion of the first phase of the project, we were keen to evaluate the impact of our efforts to support the sector, particularly in supporting them to create their own IRRPs.  We aimed to identify which aspects of our work have been most beneficial and to understand the drivers and barriers institutions face when implementing IRRPs. Additionally, we sought to explore any further roles Jisc can play in facilitating institutions in this area. 

To achieve this, we reached out to webinar attendees, inviting them to participate in follow-up interviews to further explore these themes.  Six institutions, each at different stages of their IRRP journey, agreed to share their experiences with us. These ranged from those who had already implemented their policies and were considering next steps, to those for whom IRRP was not yet an immediate priority. It’s important to note that none of these institutions were early adopters of IRRPs; these were the groups we had hoped to reach and support the most in developing their IRRP.  

The institutions spanned Jisc bands 2-9, with most falling within bands 5a and 5b with the majority describing themselves as teaching-focused rather than research-focused.  

Exploring the drivers behind webinar attendance 

Our interviews uncovered several motivational factors for webinar attendance: 

• Desire to learn more about Rights Retention (RR): Many attendees were keen to understand RR and how to implement it at an institutional level. They sought insights into best practices that could be applied within their own contexts, especially from similar institutions
• Exploring IRRP implementation: For institutions that had not yet implemented an IRRP but were considering it, attendance was driven by a need to explore the concept further and understand the steps involved in moving towards implementation
• Addressing ongoing challenges: Some attendees were motivated by ongoing discussions about the challenges posed by the Research Excellence Framework (REF), embargos, and licenses, and therefore attended the webinars to gain a better understanding of these issues

Time and effort savings with Jisc’s shared resources  

We wanted to know whether respondents had accessed and utilised the documents made available to the community via a dedicated IRRP channel in our Digital Research Community group Teams site. If you haven’t already done so, please complete the registration form for access to this (access restricted to UK HE academic community). The following document types were reported as particularly useful: 

• Jisc maintained list of publisher contact details: This list served as a valuable starting point, often supplemented with additional data from other sources
• Prior notification letters to publishers: Templates provided by other institutions proved helpful for notifying publishers about RR at their respective institutions
• Committee papers: Existing papers in the file store were adapted for use, demonstrating their practical value

Overall, having a central hub for IRRP resources, like the IRRP channel, was deemed highly beneficial. The availability of various templates and guides saved time and effort during both the implementation and planning stages of implanting an IRRP.  Institutions that were not yet ready to implement IRRP found it reassuring to know that these resources would be available when they were prepared to move forward with the process. 

We would like to thank the colleagues who were kind enough to share documentation via the Teams site. 

Knowledge sharing and assurance  

Participants reported that they found our webinars useful for understanding what other institutions were doing, as this information helps them to respond to similar challenges and navigate their own process more effectively.  They reported that hearing about the experiences and potential pitfalls of other institutions that had successfully implemented an IRRP, and who were willing to share their knowledge and support, was reassuring.  

The webinars highlighted the importance of a collective approach to addressing issues.  This instils a level of confidence when it comes to dealing with some of the potential issues around RR, such as the legal aspects and potential push back from publishers. 

Providing support on the practical steps towards an IRRP  

An IRRP policy is a crucial step towards achieving RR, but it also involves developing new workflows, processes, and modifying existing ones. Many of our interviewees found the webinars extremely useful for gaining information and ideas on: 

• Setting the groundwork for implementing an IRRP, including key arguments
• Identifying key processes and creating a checklist of tasks to do, such as notifying publishers in advance
• Communicating the new policy and strategies for engagement 

Overall, it was reported that the webinars provided good coverage of IRRP, though there was no expectation that everything could be covered.  We are not working in isolation in advancing and supporting the implementation of IRRPs. Interviewees mentioned their participation in various other IRRP webinars, such as those hosted by SCONUL.  And the activities by Jisc in this area complement work being undertaken by other global  organisations, e.g. SPARC Europe. 

Legal insights and cost savings

Though we didn’t set out to cover the legal aspects of developing an IRRP, respondents spoke about how they had gained confidence that this was a hurdle that could be negotiated.   

Many early adopters of IRRP were larger, research-intensive institutions with access to extensive internal resources, including legal teams with the relevant knowledge of the legal aspects of IP and Copyright. In contrast, most of the institutions we interviewed, while having in-house legal teams, often lacked the resources and expertise to fully support the legal aspects of implementing an IRRP. 

Our role in supporting IRRPs was highlighted as becoming more crucial as institutions with fewer resources and less legal expertise begin to adopt these policies. Many interviewees described their institutions as risk-averse, highlighting the importance of a collective approach to addressing these issues. Knowing they are part of a sector-wide effort towards IRRP gives them confidence, even when facing challenges from publishers on rights notification. 

Gaining insights from how other institutions have approached the legal aspects of RR has made the process less daunting for many. This shared knowledge has directly resulted in cost savings for some institutions by eliminating the need to hire external legal advisors.   Additionally, learning from other institutions’ experiences allows them to better inform their own legal teams, who may not specialise in IP and copyright. 

Developing knowledge by being part of a network 

We gathered feedback on how useful the webinar was for networking purposes.  The insights we received were largely shaped by the stage of IRRP implementation at each institution.  For institutions where IRRP implementation was not an immediate priority or where a policy was already well established, there were no immediate plans to reach out to contacts. However, the webinars were reported to be useful for identifying future contacts.    

Conversely, institutions in the early stages or just beginning their IRRP journey reported a higher likelihood of engaging with key contacts in the future.  For these institutions, the webinars were instrumental in highlighting potential contacts and future networking opportunities. 

Drivers and barriers to implementing IRRPs 

The interviews provided valuable insights into the factors driving and hindering the implementation of IRRPs at various institutions. 

Drivers

• Compliance with various external mandates: Adhering to requirements from REF, UKRI etc. 
• Senior leadership support: Advocacy and backing from senior leaders 
• Sector trends: Reassurance from observing similar and larger research-intensive institutions adopting IRRP, indicating a broader movement
• Open Access transition: Embracing the shift towards open access
• Moving away from Transitional Agreements (TAs): Seeking alternatives to transitional publishing agreements
• Financial considerations: Opposition to Article Processing Charges (APCs) and the need for subscription reviews

Barriers

• Lack of internal expertise or access to support resources, especially in relation to the legal aspects of IRRP 
• Awaiting REF clarity: Uncertainty around future REF mandates  
• Limited internal awareness: RR still a relatively unknown concept within the institution 
• Alignment: Desire to be aligned with RR rather than leading on this
• Competing priorities: Other immediate institutional priorities taking precedence 
• Leadership changes: Lack of support or changes in senior leadership  
• Institutional Focus: Teaching focused institutions reported that they were less likely to perceive implementation of an IRRP as a priority 

Post webinar outcomes 

We sought to assess the outcomes and impact of our two IRRP Question Time webinars.  Here’s what we found:  

• Raising awareness and support: Participants reported that the webinars motivated them to actively raise awareness of RR within their working groups
• Policy amendments and approvals: Several institutions have amended existing policies, such as the Open Research Policy and the Intellectual Property Policy, to include RR wording. These amendments were approved by academic boards and have since been implemented, demonstrating a commitment to either integrating RR into existing institutional policies or establishing new IRRPs
• Publisher notifications: Institutions have taken steps to notify publishers about their RR policies. Some have chosen to send prior notification letters, while others prefer email notifications to manage costs. The use of templates and shared lists of publishers has facilitated this process
• Post-implementation considerations: The webinars provided valuable insights into post-implementation steps, such as workflow implications, repository checking, and monitoring processes. Participants found discussions on these topics particularly useful for planning and executing their IRRP strategies 

Since the interviews have been conducted, we have made the following additional resources available:  

• 133 new contacts have been added to the Jisc maintained list of publishers, including 67 book publishers.  To comply with GDPR regulations, we’ve removed any contact details that contain or directly link to personally identifiable data. Where possible, we’ve provided alternative contact options
• Added new IRRP policies to the Jisc list of UK institutional rights retention policies for the following institutions:  London School of Economics and Political Science, Middlesex University, University of Bath 
• The University of St Andrews ‘Notification of Rights Retention Policy’ policy has been made available, covering monographs, edited collections and book chapters 

Next steps 

The discussions we had and the feedback we received were invaluable and highlighted the next steps we could take to support the implementation of IRRPs, such as addressing perceived inefficiencies and obstacles, particularly in publisher pushback to RR. We will consider these issues and explore the best ways to provide the necessary support. In the meantime, we will continue to work closely with members and stakeholders to develop the IRRP community as part of our support for RR and the move to open research. 

We are always happy to add more documents to our resource bank and facilitate further conversations.  If you have any relevant resources that you would like to share with the community, please contact suzanne.williams@jisc.ac.uk or peter.findlay@jisc.ac.uk. 

We would like to extend our thanks to all of those who participated in the interviews. Your willingness to share your valuable experiences and insights is greatly appreciated.