Why ten-year-old children should not be held criminally responsible

by Harriet Pierpoint, The Conversation

Credit: Shutterstock/Anna Berdnik

In a recent 12-month period, police in England and Wales made just under 60,000 arrests of children. Of these cases, which involved crimes including theft and antisocial behavior, nearly 27,000 ended up in court.

Some of these defendants were just 10 years old—the minimum age at which a child can be prosecuted and punished by law for an offense in these countries. In Ireland and Scotland it is 12, while in Sweden and Denmark it is 15.

The age age of criminal responsibility is hardly ever discussed by the mainstream media or politicians in the UK. When it is, the debate often goes hand in hand with reference to homicides by children. But the rarity of these shocking and sad events is seldom mentioned.

One such case, the killing by two 10-year-olds of the toddler James Bulger in 1993, is often cited by those in favor of a low age of criminal responsibility. The argument goes that if a child is old enough to act like an adult and commit a serious crime, then they are old enough to be treated like an adult and a criminal.

But this means society is willing to treat criminal children differently to other children. Whereas adults perceive childhood as a period of innocence, argues law professor Julia Fionda, as soon as individual children fail to live up to adult perceptions of what children should be like, they lose their "angelic" status and are seen instead as "devils."

The death of James Bulger also led to the abolition of something referred to in legal terms as "doli incapax" (incapable of evil). Doli incapax meant that children aged 10 to 14 were presumed to be incapable of crime unless the prosecution could prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the child knew that what they were doing was seriously wrong, rather than naughty or mischievous.

In other words, it used to be assumed that children under 14 were not criminally responsible unless they understood the seriousness of their wrongdoing. Doli incapax protected some children involved in minor offending, where the difference between seriously wrong compared to naughty or mischievous may be less clear in some children's minds.

But that doctrine was abolished in England and Wales in 1998, leaving an age of criminal responsibility of ten, the lowest in Europe. This is too young.

To find out what others think, I recently launched an online survey of public opinion on the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. So far, from more than 200 responses, a clear majority (88%) think the age limit should be raised—with the most frequently cited age being 16. The reason given by participants is usually a belief that this is an age by which most children can distinguish right from wrong and have an understanding of the law.

The evidence

Another reason to raise the age of criminal responsibility is the rarity of the most serious crimes being committed by children. The evidence shows that in the year ending March 2020, three of the 187 people (1.6%) convicted of murder in England and Wales were under 16.

Of around 49,100 proven offenses committed by children in that year, the main offense type (31%) was violence against a person.

For legal purposes, the seriousness of a violent offense is measured on a scale ranging from one (least serious) up to eight (most serious). Overall, just under 140 proven offenses committed by children had the highest gravity score of eight, which accounts for only 0.3%.

Overall then, recorded serious violence by children is infrequent and the vast majority of offenses committed by children are considered to be less serious.

As I have argued elsewhere, there is also a lack of consistency across the broader criminal and civil law in England and Wales. The effective age of most civil responsibilities (playing the lottery, claiming benefits, voting, buying a pet, sitting on a jury) is 16 or above.

There is also neuroscientific research which shows that adolescents' brains predispose them to risk taking behavior and responding emotionally, without the same abilities as adults to control their impulses and consider the long-term implications.

This reflects what has been widely observed—that there is an increase in criminal behavior in children that peaks in late adolescence, which then declines throughout adult life, when, some argue, they "grow out" of crime. Meanwhile, research shows that contact with the criminal justice system can extend the criminal careers of children, rather than curtail them.

There is an acknowledgement of this in the "child first" approach to justice, which emphasizes diversion and minimum intervention, and has been adopted as a strategic priority for England and Wales.

There is also some will to at least look again at the age of criminal responsibility, with a UK government review into the subject recommended last year. In view of the evidence, and to embrace the idea of minimum intervention more fully, it is clear that the age should be raised.Children likely to be pleading guilty when innocent, study argues

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Study: NFL failed to follow its own policy in punishing violent offenses

by University of Arkansas

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

From 2010 to 2019, the National Football League did not follow its own personal conduct policy in punishing players who committed violent acts, including violence against women, according to a new study.

Findings published in the Journal of Sport and Social Issues show that players who committed "general violence"—that is, violence not specific to women—received, on average, less than a third of the minimum requirement for number of games suspended, according to league policy. Players who committed acts of violence against women received longer suspensions but, on average, still fewer games than the league minimum.

"We don't wish to draw attention away from violence specific to women, but our findings, we think, suggest that the league has less of a problem in this area and more of a problem addressing violent behavior in general," said Jacquelyn Wiersma-Mosley, professor of human development and family sciences at the U of A. "In fact, the league punished players who committed drug offenses twice as much those who committed general acts of violence."

Wiersma-Mosley and undergraduate student Krystyna Gotberg gathered data from a public list of 176 NFL players who violated league policies and received game suspensions between 2010 and 2019. The researchers created a database that housed player information, violation, number of games suspended and other pertinent information derived from public websites and news outlets, including ESPN News, Denver Post, Pro Football Talk, NFL.com, U.S. Today and the New York Times.

There were four types of violations:

• Violence against women, including sexual assault, rape and domestic violence.
• General violent behaviors, including assault and battery.
• Drug-related offenses, including substance abuse, alcohol, driving under the influence, illegal drugs and performance-enhancing drugs.
• Minor sports-related infractions, including missing a team meeting.

More than half of the violations were for violent offenses, the researchers found, though only 14 percent of the total violations were for violence against women. At 40 percent, general violent behaviors accounted for the highest number of cases. The average number of game suspensions for general violent offenses was 1.75. Average number of game suspensions for violence against women was 4.08. Players received suspensions of 4.05 games for drug-related offenses and 1.88 for minor infractions.

"There was surprisingly little empirical research out there on violence against women in the NFL and whether the league holds players accountable for it," Wiersma-Mosley said. "Finding that it doesn't was less surprising than discovering how little the league punishes players for general violence. We think these findings naturally inspire many additional questions about implementation of league policy and labor relations between owners and player."Just a game? Study shows no evidence that violent video games lead to real-life violence

More information: Krystyna Gotberg et al, An Empirical Investigation of Violence Against Women in the NFL, Journal of Sport and Social Issues (2021). DOI: 10.1177/01937235211043645

Provided by University of Arkansas 

The Olympics shifts away from testosterone tests and toward human rights

by Ryan Storr, Madeleine Pape, Sheree Bekker, The Conversation

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) this week released a much anticipated policy document aimed at making the Olympics more inclusive for transgender athletes and athletes with sex variations.

The new framework builds on more than two years of consultation with diverse athletes, advocates, and stakeholders.

The devil will be in the detail and implementation, of course. But this fresh approach, which places human rights at the center, could herald a new era of gender-inclusive sports participation and governance.

Why this new framework—and why now?

One of the most prominent gender equity and human rights issues of recent years has been the inclusion of gender-minoritised people—those whose bodies and/or gender expression and identity do not neatly align with normative notions of the female/male binary.

This issue affects sport globally from grassroots to elite levels. Stakeholders have long called for change.

We work with sports organizations and athletes grappling with the question of inclusion in women's sport.

Our own research has highlighted that many sports organizations develop policies with little to no knowledge of the complexity of the issue—and often without engaging the athletes affected.

The new IOC framework follows a long and much-critiqued history of efforts to define the boundaries of the female athlete category, dating back to the "nude parades" of the 1960s.

In the past, the goal has been to find a "biological basis of womanhood" and relied on incomplete and controversial scientific evidence.

Today, however, there is wider recognition of the fact science alone cannot provide a straightforward answer to such as socially and biologically complex question.

An alternative approach, reflected in the IOC's new framework, is to build policy around the concept of human rights.

What do the new guidelines say?

The new framework recognize human rights as a fundamental responsibility of sports governing bodies.

It explicitly takes the approach athletes shouldn't be excluded solely on the basis of their transgender identity or sex variations. It aims to ensure everyone can practice sport safely and free from harassment, irrespective of their gender or sex-linked traits.

Importantly, the framework attempts to move sports governing bodies away from relying on testosterone as a one-size-fits-all measure of eligibility.

In its place, it emphasizes ten key principles to guide the policy development process:

• prevention of harm
• non-discrimination
• fairness
• no presumption of advantage
• evidence-based approaches to regulation
• the primacy of health and bodily autonomy
• a stakeholder-centered approach to rule development
• the right to privacy
• periodic review of eligibility regulations.

The relationship between testosterone and performance is so complex, sports governing bodies cannot realistically expect to rely on testosterone measures when defining eligibility.

There is just as much diversity among the bodies and performances of trans women and women with sex variations as we see among cisgender and normatively-bodied women athletes.

The IOC's spokespeople were pragmatic: let's take one step at a time, have faith in the ten principles, and see where they take us.

In this way, the new framework (and its underlying philosophy) moves us well beyond contentious testosterone thresholds introduced in 2015 and the 2003 Stockholm consensus, which required athletes to have affirmation surgeries and "anatomical changes."

In fact, the IOC now recognizes the "severe harm" and systemic discrimination caused by such eligibility criteria and policies.

This includes the disproportionate burdens and harms that have been wrought upon women of color from Global South nations in sports like track and field.

The question now is: how will other sports governing bodies, most notably the International Federations (IFs) that govern each Olympic sport, be brought on side?

The IOC now calls for IFs to take "a principled approach to develop their criteria that are applicable to their sport."

An important and welcome move

This framework represents a step forward for gender-inclusive sport but there's more work ahead. It doesn't mention non-binary athletes at all, meaning it still frames elite sports participation within a strict gender binary.

It's promising to see a shift away from a paradigm focused on particular scientific and medical approaches regulating exclusion of certain groups. The move toward a contemporary vision of gender-inclusive sport is promising.

This new approach is a positive move for gender equitable sport; both trans women and women with sex variations will be valuable allies in the fight to make sport safe and inclusive for all women.

Hopefully, it will help make grassroots a more welcome space for trans and gender diverse people. These groups report alarming levels of poor mental health and suicidal ideation and have a right to opportunities to improve wellbeing through sport.

Sport has a unique opportunity to advance progress and health outcomes for marginalized communities.

This move may offer hope to young people of diverse genders and sex that they too can strive to achieve greatness in a sport they loveThe debate over transgender athletes' rights is testing the current limits of science and the la

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Staff wellbeing programmes help social relationships and reduce bullying

by University of East Anglia

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Programmes aimed at supporting employees' health and wellbeing can also benefit their social relationships and reduce bullying, according to a new study published today.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia (UEA), working in collaboration with insurance and investments company Vitality, found that the more employees engage with health and wellbeing programmes (HWPs) the better the quality of co-worker relationships, the less they experience bullying over time, and the better their longer-term wellbeing and job satisfaction.

Unexpectedly, the results suggest that even when senior managers are not committed to these initiatives, employee engagement with HWPs is associated with better relationships at work and the same subsequent positive benefits.

The researchers say the findings are particularly relevant given the new patterns of working which have emerged as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organisations are increasingly adopting HWPs, yet further understanding is required of the underlying processes or conditions that may influence their effectiveness on employee outcomes, such as wellbeing and job satisfaction.

Programmes vary in scope and comprehensiveness but can include a broad range of information, health screening and activities which attempt to reduce health risks, prevent chronic disease, support healthy behaviours or attempt to identify and change potential health-related problems.

This three-year study used data from 7,785 UK employees at 64 organisations. Its findings are published in the British Journal of Management.

Lead authors Dr. Roberta Fida and Dr. Annilee Game, from UEA's Norwich Business School, said the evidence showed that promoting wellbeing interventions in the organisations has "unintended" positive consequences.

"While organisations may adopt these programmes primarily to target employee health and wellbeing directly, we found that employees' social relationships also benefit," said Dr. Fida.

"When organisations invest in wellbeing they communicate care for their employees and this is reciprocated with more respectful interpersonal interactions. This in turn significantly reduces the onset of workplace bullying and improves longer term mental and physical health as well as job satisfaction."

Dr. Game said: "These findings are especially relevant for managers to consider as organisations develop new patterns of working in the post-COVID era. People's wellbeing has been significantly affected by the pandemic. Investing in HWPs brings both relationship and health benefits that can help support employees adjusting to the new normal."

The research used 2015-2017 data from 'Vitality's Britain's Healthiest Workplace', an annual study that provides one of the largest and most comprehensive datasets on organisational performance and wellbeing of UK organisations and their employees. The study looks at personal, social, lifestyle, job and workplace information from the employee and organisational perspective using self-report questionnaires. Any UK-based organisation employing at least 20 people, in any sector, can participate.

Dr. Martin Stepanek, Lead Researcher at Vitality and co-author of the new study said: "This study confirms just how wide-reaching the benefits of implementing employee health and wellbeing programmes can be. There are numerous positive consequences of wellbeing interventions—beyond the obvious intended benefits—for the organisation and its employees, and wider society.

"By offering such programmes, organisations not only directly affect employees' wellbeing, they help to create a culture of positive change in which employees are more likely to thrive."

'Longitudinal Effects of Engagement with Workplace Health Programmes on Employee Outcomes: A Relational Perspective' is published in the British Journal of Management on Friday November 19.Stress management classes and wellbeing coaching no help at improving workers' mental health, study says

More information: Longitudinal Effects of Engagement with Workplace Health Programmes on Employee Outcomes: A Relational Perspective, British Journal of Management, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12565

Provided by University of East Anglia 

What Americans hear about social justice at church, and what they do about it

by R. Khari Brown, Ronald Brown, The Conversation

Credit: Chart: R. Khari Brown, Ronald E. Brown, and James S. Jackson 

Source: "Race and the Power of Sermons on American Politics

On June 5, 2020, it had been just over a week since a white Minnesota police officer, Derek Chauvin, killed George Floyd, an unarmed, African American man. Protests were underway outside Central United Methodist Church, an interracial church in downtown Detroit with a long history of activism on civil rights, peace, immigrant rights and poverty issues.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the church was no longer holding in-person worship services. But anyone walking into its sanctuary that day would have seen long red flags behind the pastor's lectern, displaying the words "peace" and "love." A banner reading "Michigan Says No! To War" hung alongside pictures of civil rights icons Fannie Lou Hamer and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., as well as labor-rights activist Cesar Chavez. In line with her church's activist tradition, senior pastor Jill Hardt Zundell stood outside the building and preached about her church's commitment to eradicating anti-Black racism to her congregants and all that passed by.

In our sociology and political science research, we have both studied how race, religion and politics are intimately connected in the United States. Our recent book, "Race and the Power of Sermons on American Politics"—written with psychologist James S. Jackson—uses 44 national and regional surveys conducted between 1941 and 2019 to examine racial differences in who hears messages about social justice at church. We also examined how hearing those types of sermons correlates with support for policies aimed at reducing social inequality and with political activism.

For centuries, many Americans have envisioned that their country has a special relationship with God—that their nation is "a city on a hill" with special blessings and responsibilities. Beliefs that America is exceptional have inspired views across the political spectrum.

Many congregations that emphasize social justice embrace this idea of a "covenant" between the United States and the creator. They interpret it to mean Americans must create opportunity and inclusion for all—based in the belief that all people are equally valued by God.

Politics in the pews

In our book, we find that, depending upon the issue, between half and two-thirds of Americans support religious leaders taking public positions on racism, poverty, war and immigration. Roughly a third report attending worship settings where their clergy or friends discuss these issues and the importance of politically acting on one's beliefs.

African Americans and Hispanic Americans tend to be more supportive of religious leaders speaking out against racism and attempting to influence poverty and immigration policy. On the whole, African Americans are the most likely to support religious leaders expressing political views on specific issues, from poverty and homelessness to peace, as we examine in our book.

Black Americans are also more likely to attend worship settings where clergy and other members encourage them to connect their faith to social justice work. For example, according to a July 2020 Pew Research Center poll, 67% of African American worshippers reported hearing sermons in support of Black Lives Matter, relative to 47% of Hispanics and 36% of whites.

Race also affects the relationship between hearing such sermons and supporting related policies. When statistically accounting for religious affiliation, political party and demographic characteristics, attending these types of congregations more strongly associates with white Americans supporting progressive policy positions than it does for Black Americans and Hispanics.

White worshippers who hear sermons about race and poverty, for example, are more likely to oppose spending cuts to welfare programs than those who hear no such messages at their place of worship.

This is not the case for African Americans and Hispanics, however, who are as likely to oppose social welfare spending cuts regardless of where they worship. In other words, while hearing sermons about social justice issues informs or at least aligns with white progressive policy attitudes, this alignment is not as strong for Blacks and Hispanics.

Clergy of predominantly white worship spaces are often more politically liberal than their congregants. Historically, this has translated into members pushing back when clergy take public positions that are more progressive than their congregation's.

This may explain why white parishioners who chose to attend congregations where they hear social justice-themed sermons tend to be more politically progressive, or more open to sermons challenging previous views, than are other white parishioners.

From words to action

However, when it comes to the connection between hearing sermons and taking political action, race doesn't matter as much. That is, when taking into account religious affiliation, party affiliation and social demographics, people who hear social justice-themed sermons in their places of worship are more likely than other Americans to engage in political activism, regardless of their race.

For example, during the months following Floyd's murder, Black, white and Hispanic congregants who heard sermons about race and policing were more likely than others to have protested for any purpose in the past 12 months, according to data from the 2020 National Politics Study. More specifically, white Americans who attended houses of worship where they heard those types of sermons were more than twice as likely to participate in a protest as other white worshippers. Black and Hispanic attendees were almost twice as likely to protest, compared to those attending houses of worship where they did not hear sermons about race and policing.

The difference between people who attend houses of worship with a social-justice focus and people who did not attend religious services at all is even more striking. White Americans who heard such messages at religious services were almost four times more likely to protest than white Americans who did not attend services; Black and Hispanic Americans were almost three times as likely.

Today, many Americans are pessimistic about inequality, political divisions and ethnic conflict. Yet, as these surveys show, social justice-minded congregations inspire members to work for policies that support their vision of the public good.Huge congregations view racial inequality differently than others do, study shows

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Diagnosing current and future water risks facing the pharmaceutical sector

by WWF

Water stewardship is key to reducing water risks. Credit: WWF-Myanmar

The pharmaceutical sector exists to improve the wellbeing and health of billions of people globally. The production and use of its products also have the potential to negatively impact human and ecosystem health—if appropriate action to manage its potential impacts on water is not taken.

The sector is generally very aware of the dependencies it has on water and the potential it has for impacting water. A new report from WWF and AstraZeneca—Diagnosing current and future water risks facing the pharmaceutical sector—focuses on how the sector is currently addressing water across its value chains and what shared water challenges it faces in the places it operates.

The report begins with an overview of the pharmaceutical sector's impacts on water and the current water focus areas across its value chain. The report then draws on the insights from a basin water risk assessment, using WWF's Water Risk Filter, of 5,272 pharmaceutical manufacturing sites around the world involved in the manufacturing of human-related pharmaceuticals.

The basin risk assessment also considered future water-related basin risks by applying TCFD-aligned scenarios to the results. These insights help to illustrate how water quality risks represent a significant current and future water-related risk for the sector.

It also identifies 27 large basins that host more than 60% of all pharmaceutical sites assessed. These basins present an opportunity for the sector to act collectively on shared water challenges. The last part of the report draws together all the earlier insights to present a series of six recommendations for the pharmaceutical sector to consider adopting both as individual companies but also as a sector.

The purpose of this report is to analyze the sector's positioning of water within the current and future water contexts in which it operates and provide recommendations for a strategic sectoral repositioning on water to meet these future challenges.

The implementation of many of the recommendations within this report will represent logistical, operational, and potentially legal challenges for pharmaceutical companies. However, many of the future trends identified in this report are likely to impact how the sector operates in the future.

The report concludes that there is an opportunity for pharmaceutical companies to anticipate future impacts of both water quality and quantity. They could take a lead beyond regulation and work together to develop new approaches to protect these essential resources.Human rights to water of millions endangered by large-scale agriculture and industries

More information: Diagnosing current and future water risks facing the pharmaceutical sector: wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/dow … eutical_sector_1.pdf

Provided by WWF 

If we couch scientific misconduct as social misconduct the wider effects can be seen more clearly

by David Bradley, Inderscience

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

We all live and work in a scientific world, even those who perceive their realm to be within the arts and humanities. At no time is this more apparent than at the height of a global pandemic. The impact of science on our lives and the environment are profound given that the technology wrought by our scientific understanding of the world around us can be used in a positive way or abused. As such, science is deeply embedded in our society.

Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Development, Juliette Rouchier of the Université Paris-Dauphine, France, argues that the notion of scientific misconduct, once seemingly distant from our everyday lives, is in fact far more relevant and is, in reality, social misconduct. The consequences of such misconduct however it might be labeled are therefore critically important to society.

Rouchier points out that scientists might imagine they benefit from an "aura of neutrality and reason." In this sense, they can express their negative personal opinions in public as if those opinions are somehow relevant constructed knowledge. This can have serious consequences when an issue being discussed is as important as pollution, which has a significant political component that somehow lies outside the scientific realm. This is despite the fact that the technologies involved and their effects require a fundamental scientific understanding without which the technologies would not exist, our picture of the environment and the effects of pollution, and the new technologies to address the problem would not exist.

Fake news and misinformation emerging from the realm of science must be seen as a social problem and addressed as such. If falsehoods are being spread by individuals for political, economic, or other gain, then those disseminating such lies must be seen as being involved in scientific conduct of a most serious nature. The public needs to trust science, its processes and the knowledge it generates. Without that trust, the nuance of what is meant by a scientific theory is lost and those who take an anti-scientific stance on many topics is reinforced to the detriment of us all and to the detriment of the world in which we live.Combating COVID-19 misinformation: Brief infographic exposure may increase trust in science

More information: Juliette Rouchier, Scientific misconduct as social misconduct, International Journal of Sustainable Development (2021). DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2021.118845

Provided by Inderscience 

Australian open-access research plan isn't risk-free

by Kathy Bowrey, Kimberlee Weatherall, Kylie Pappalardo, Marie Hadley, The Conversation

Paywalls have limited access even to research publications relating to open access.

 Credit: Dunk/Flickr, CC BY 4.0

Chief Scientist Cathy Foley is leading an open access strategy for Australia. Foley estimates the Australian government invests A$12 billion a year of public money in research and innovation only for most of the publications that eventuate to be locked behind a paywall, inaccessible to industry and the taxpayer. At the same time, Australian universities and others pay publishers an estimated $460 million to $1 billion a year to see this published work.

Inspired by the European open-access initiative Plan S, Foley's goal is to make all publicly funded Australian research publications free for the public to read. This is to be done through a sector-wide agreement between universities and publishers.

The multinational publishers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research—Elsevier, Springer Nature Group, Wiley and Clarivate—are talking with the Chief Scientist. But no new sector funding is available from the government. The idea is it will pool the funds that universities currently pay to publishers to finance new sector-wide transformative agreements. These are also known as "read and publish" agreements.

Australia has lagged behind Europe and America in making research open access. That's despite it being required by funders like the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian Research Council (ARC).

Transformative agreements could help redress the problem. However, these agreements are also a new business model.

Two existing models: Green and gold

When publishers accept a journal article for publication they negotiate with authors about the license terms that will apply to its distribution. Most publishers will issue contracts that allow for open access. It's usually achieved in one of two ways.

The "green model" involves researchers placing copies of their work in an online open-access repository. Often the pre-editing and layout version is made available because the publisher denies permission to make the "version of record" accessible to non-subscribers, even in the university institutional repository. Sometimes authors can negotiate green access but with a delay of at least 12 months and up to several years.

The "gold model" guarantees the article will immediately be made available free to readers. It usually involves authors or their institutions paying an up-front article processing charge (APC) to publishers.

APCs can be steep. Costs map the "prestige" of the journal and what the market will bear. The huge diversity in fees, even from the same publisher, shows these are unrelated to any real-world cost of article processing.

Both green and gold open-access publishing can increase the social capital or reputation of the author. For the publisher, it increases the asset value of the much-cited text and the associated journal.

However, in the business of scholarly communication, individual articles are not of significant value. Commercial products emerge from the accumulation of individual copyrights. Publishers bundle works under recognizable titles to be sold back to the sector as database subscriptions and data-driven research services and platforms.

Data related to citations, reads and downloads can be sold to third parties. These include the ARC to underpin its ranking of universities and grants.

Large publishers monitor repositories and sharing sites that often house green open-access papers. They do this both to capture the data generated and to reduce the potential of these outlets to challenge the need for commercial library subscriptions.

For example, Elsevier's research products include Scopus, SciVal, Science Direct, Mendeley, Pure, Academia and bepress/SSRN. Elsevier has taken copyright infringement action against independent sharing sites such as Sci-Hub and ResearchGate.

What is the transformative agreement business model?

With transformative agreements, universities agree to pay a fee that covers both subscriptions and costs for their future open-access publishing. These agreements do not necessarily reduce subscription costs.

Some agreements create a "read fee" for subscription access to existing academic literature, with open-access publishing apparently permitted at no extra cost. Others limit how many articles will be published as open access by the institution or discount article processing costs. Many include an annual fee increase of 2-3% to cover inflation.

In Australia, the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) has taken the lead on negotiating transformative agreements on behalf of its member institutions. It is not yet clear who would negotiate agreements with publishers under the Chief Scientist's plan, if the funding is not directly paid by universities but by government.

In the UK, the introduction of Plan S has raised concerns for the future of humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS), which also face the higher costs of monograph publishing. Were Foley's negotiations to proceed with the big STEM publishers first, HASS, Australian and independent publishers could find themselves locked out of open access, as the pooled fund runs dry. A sustainable transition to open access requires arrangements with a variety of publishers.

Pooling funds and collective negotiation are helpful in achieving better open-access outcomes. However, greater financial transparency and accountability over who benefits from academic copyright are required for Plan S-style agreements.

There are risks in taking money from universities that are struggling to fund research. Their grants already do not cover the full cost of academic research. One outcome is pressure to increase teaching-only positions.

As global open-access advocacy organization SPARC reported in its 2021 update: "The past year has seen more [commercial] deals that led to more concentration, loss of diversity, and ultimately to the academic community's lessening control over its own destiny."

Academics provide a free service to commercial publishers by researching, writing, reviewing and editing journals without payment. Universities pay for this labor, which generates the intellectual property relied on by publishers. Recognizing this value could help us cut better deals with publishers.

Springer Nature announces plan for gold open access options for Nature journals

Provided by The Conversation