PONE-D-22-07577The green, gold grass of home: introducing open access in universities in NorwayPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wenaas,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: This is a neat research contribution to the field with results about Norway as a case country with regard to the rising demand of open access. The reviewers also found it strong and convincing in general, and raised several issues you are requested to look at and deal with thoroughly. In particular, as Reviewer 1 underscores, the structure of the paper should be re-thought at certain points so that it possesses more consistency. As Reviewer 2 points out, you should be more concrete about why you worked with these ten universities of your choice and place them in the larger context of Norwegian higher education. Both reviewers commented on the literature review, probably a separate section on this would help. Please, in your rebuttal deal with all of their comments.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

István Tarrósy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Lars Wenaas is a PhD-candidate at the TIK-center at the University of Oslo while holding a position at 'Sikt', a governmental body reporting to the ministry of education and research in Norway. The position is a part of the department with responsibility of coordinating open access affairs in Norway.]

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General remarks

The manuscript aims to give a review of the institutionalization processes of Norwegian universities as those react to open access publishing. The authors conducted exploratory research to uncover how the universities implement changes and apply new practices to give institutional responses to open access policy.

The methodology is chosen and applied correctly. The document analysis is conducted consistently and described clearly in the manuscript. Both the advantages and concerns regarding the institutional processes of open access are highlighted.

This manuscript is actual, interesting, and reflects valuable research about open access.

However, some issues of open access that are relevant from the universities point of view are not discussed in the manuscript. Thus, the reviewer has some remarks and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Major issues

1. The topics of the three sections of the literature review are separated strongly. So, there is a considerable thematic gap between the consecutive parts. The content of the sections should be linked consistently. It is also worth considering whether the sequence of the three sections of the literature review is appropriate.

2. In the second section of the literature review, the authors should also address how open access and the quality (or rankings) of academic journals are related to each other and whether there are any differences among disciplines regarding open access publishing.

3. The authors found little information about the advantages of open access for education in the studied documents. However, more details should be provided about how open access can support education. Some statements and remarks would be useful and may be incentive.

4. Why open access publishing can be advantageous for researchers should also be pointed out.

5. The manuscript does not explain the issues of open access publishing funds. However, these are also relevant for universities and researchers (as the authors of papers). How universities cover the article processing charges (APC) and distribute the (dedicated) open access publishing funds among disciplines, departments, research projects, and researchers are crucial questions. It is also relevant how researchers can require financial resources to cover APC. These issues are also related to institutionalization processes and should be discussed in the manuscript.

Minor issues

1. The main title of the manuscript should be worded more professionally.

2. The time frame of the study should be indicated in the abstract.

3. Single and double quotations marks are applied alternately in the text. A coherent format is required.

4. The page number is missing in some word by word citations, e.g. on page 5, in lines 191-193. It is required in each quotation.

5. The authors should give some remarks in the conclusion that could be useful for other countries and universities.

6. Notes should be provided in Figure 1 to understand the markings clearly.

7. In Figure 2, all the signs have to be given in English.

All in all, this is a valuable manuscript. It could be improved significantly by considering the abovementioned remarks and suggestions.

Reviewer #2: The paper is focusing a very up-to-date and timely topic as open access phenomenon is with us just since few years. Thy analysis provides a fair overview of the topic, especially the context (its connection with the universities' third mission). Investigating strategic documents of different universities is a great idea, however, it should be emphasized better, why not all Norwegian universities are included. Also, the literature review part should be established. Now we can see the theoretical framework but not an overview, what other authors wrote about this topic. It would be an essential issue, as the topic itself is very young. So, in this way, a critical-analytical, comprehensive literature review would be one of the strengths of the paper and could generate a more wide publicity.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The green, gold grass of home: introducing open access in universities in Norway

PONE-D-22-07577R1

Dear Dr. Wenaas,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

István Tarrósy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The author has revised the original manuscript following the critical remarks and suggestions of the reviewers, which then resulted in an even more coherent and convincing paper. I find it relevant with a novum aspect sufficient for publication without requesting further changes or modifications.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General remarks

The authors revised their manuscript considerably. The literature review has been improved consistently. The manuscript has also been carefully corrected based on minor issues.

All in all, the revised manuscript is relevant and valuable.

Reviewer #2: The authors improved the paper about my previous recommendations. The paper represents a higher academic quality than the previous version. I can accept this version of the paper for publication without further changes.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********