[BOAI] Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets

Thu Jul 19 17:50:25 BST 2012

On 2012-07-19, at 11:05 AM, Allen Kleiman (Editor, JAMA) wrote:

> I asked the question before:
> 'Who pays for distribution and storage?'
> I got no answer!  Its not that simple -- everything should be free to all but that's not how it works in our 'world economy.'
> Allen Kleiman

Institutional Repositories (IRs) cost little to create and maintain, have multiple uses, and are part of universities' infrastructure. The cost per paper deposited is negligible. The distributor is the Internet (also part of universities' infrastructure), the Web, Google, and countless other harvesters, indexers and search engines (some specialized for OA research).

What other "distribution" did you have in mind? (Or are you still thinking in terms of Gutenberg-era print/paper distribution?)

Stevan Harnad

>  
>  
> From: boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Prof. T.D. Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:14 AM
> To: boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Subject: [BOAI] Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets
>  
> While I agree with virtually all that Stevan Harnad has to say about Finch and Willets, I doubt that repositories can be regarded as "cost free": in addition to the costs of providing and maintaining the appropriate database software (even if it is open source, it still needs maintenance), there is the cost of up to one full-time cataloguer/librarian to monitor quality, etc.
> In a recent study of the repository of a Swedish university, we found that quality control was a major issue, with academic staff reporting conference papers for which no source could be found and, indeed, at times, not even the conference could be found. So - definitely cheaper, but not cost free.
>  
> As to the composition of the Finch working party, I imagine it was determined by the Minister, and who lobbies the Minister...?
> 
> On 19 July 2012 04:36, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote:
> 
> 
> There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen
> members)... [1]
>  
> I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch
> herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any special
> influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had.
> Does Professor Harnad? [2]
> 
> Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the
> conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the
> UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3]
>  
> [1] 
> There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
> publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing 
> open access to publicly funded research.
>  
> [2] 
> The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the
> ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years
> (ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself
> in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is
> futile and very ill-received by the research community). 
>  
> The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:
> "Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."
>  
> The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of 
> publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:
>  
> Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders 
> nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that 
> researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories… 
> [so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead] 
> be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing, 
> particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and 
> in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"
>  
> Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be 
> seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public 
> funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements" 
> to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open 
> access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions] 
> for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and 
> health sectors…"
>  
> But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,
> instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates
> the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations
> of the Finch committee:
>  
> "[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that 
> is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be 
> published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option
> [Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional 
> repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo 
> period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and… 
> ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"
> http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/
>  
> [3] 
> The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select 
> Committee on Science and Technology were based on 
> 23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one
> of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the
> outcome, it was evidence and reasons.
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm
>  
> The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this: 
>  
> “This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions 
> establish institutional repositories on which their published output 
> can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online. 
> It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government 
> funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all 
> of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that 
> the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded 
> researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
>  
> At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under 
> pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select 
> Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and 
> many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway. 
>  
> As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to 
> Open Access.
>  
> If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade 
> repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and 
> unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.
>  
> Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
> reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.
>  
> Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds, 
> instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly 
> for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA 
> by mandating it.
>  
> If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role 
> in the global transition to universal OA.
>  
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400
> 
> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the
> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are
> pointedly rejecting them!
> 
> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.
> 
> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have
> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.
> 
> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the
> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)
> 
> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's
> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.
> 
> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.
> 
> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.
> 
> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted
> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the
> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)
> 
> Stevan Harnad
>  
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Professor T.D. Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.)
> Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research
> http://informationr.net/ir/
> E-mail: wilsontd at gmail.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 
> --      
> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20120719/c9546776/attachment-0001.html 