Institutional principles for negotiating with publishers: Difference between revisions

From Open Access Directory
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 85: Line 85:


* '''Universiteitsbibliotheken en Koninklijke Bibliotheek''' (UKB) (Netherlands)
* '''Universiteitsbibliotheken en Koninklijke Bibliotheek''' (UKB) (Netherlands)
** [https://esac-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/07_OA-work-processes-Netherlands-Checklist-3th-March-2017-2.pdf Checklist Big Deals and Open Access clauses: Towards negotiations and establishing work processes], March 3, 2017.
** [https://esac-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/07_OA-work-processes-Netherlands-Checklist-3th-March-2017-2.pdf Checklist: Big Deals and Open Access clauses: Towards negotiations and establishing work processes], March 3, 2017.


* '''University of California'''
* '''University of California'''

Revision as of 13:24, 16 February 2022

This list is part of the Open Access Directory.

  • This list is still under development. Every part of it may change before the official launch, including its title, URL, scope notes, and method of organization.
  • This is a list of library and university principles for negotiating with publishers. Some are from consortia rather than individual institutions.
    • When possible, include the date of public release.
  • Alphabetical by institution.



A

C

F

G

I

L

M

N

  • NorthEast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL) [consortium]
    • NERL demands a better deal, March 3, 2021. These are the NERL negotiating principles.
    • NERL endorsed the MIT Framework in the doc above and in a separate doc, January 21, 2021
    • This blog post has a useful table of the NERL negotiating goals, May 26, 2021.
  • Norwegian directorate for ICT and joint services in higher education and research (UNIT)

S

U

  • University of Washington
    • UW apparently has similar principles but we haven’t found them yet. U Maryland mentions them in its principles (above).