[Forwarded message from Frederick Friend via <span class="gmail_sendername">LIBLICENSE</span> <span dir="ltr">discussion list]</span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br>From: Frederick Friend <<a href="mailto:ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk">ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk</a>><br>
Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM<br>
<br>
February 14 2012 is the tenth anniversary of the launch of the<br>
Budapest Open Access Initiative, which resulted from what the BOAI<br>
web-site <a href="http://www.soros.org/openaccess" target="_blank">http://www.soros.org/openaccess</a> describes as “a small but<br>
lively meeting convened in Budapest by the Open Society Institute<br>
(OSI) on December 1-2, 2001”. As one of the privileged participants in<br>
that meeting I can confirm the liveliness of the discussions!<br>
<br>
The BOAI vision of an “unprecedented public good” achievable through<br>
“completely free and unrestricted access” to peer-reviewed journal<br>
literature has inspired support for open access in research<br>
communities across the globe, and the twin strategies of<br>
self-archiving by authors in repositories and/or publication in open<br>
access journals have formed the basis of policies over the past ten<br>
years to implement open access. Some authors and some research funders<br>
have supported one strategy more strongly than the other, but all open<br>
access policies have sprung from a realisation of the opportunity to<br>
achieve beneficial change in access to and re-use of publicly-funded<br>
research outputs.<br>
<br>
The case for open access has been widely-accepted and the number of<br>
research articles world-wide currently available on open access is<br>
growing fast (see Richard Poynder’s blog of June 2011<br>
<a href="http://poynder.blogspot.com/2011/06/open-access-by-numbers.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.com/2011/06/open-access-by-numbers.html</a>).<br>
However, open access articles are still in a minority. Many authors<br>
sympathetic to open access are faced with barriers to repository<br>
deposit or open access publication embedded in the current<br>
infrastructure for scholarly communication. They may find that a<br>
subscription publisher does not accept an institutional mandate for<br>
open access, or that their institution is worried about the effect<br>
upon research assessment of publication in an open access journal, or<br>
that open access funding is only available during the lifetime of a<br>
grant – all problems (and many more like them) capable of being worked<br>
through, but these are time-consuming difficulties faced by open<br>
access authors not faced by authors publishing in subscription<br>
journals.<br>
<br>
On the agenda for many political organizations and research funders is<br>
consideration of how a higher proportion of the research they fund can<br>
result in open access articles. A mandate for open access is a good<br>
start but the mandate needs to be backed up with an infrastructure<br>
which makes deposit in an open access repository or publication in an<br>
open access journal as easy for an author as signing away all rights<br>
to a subscription-based publisher. The second decade of BOAI should<br>
see the barriers to open access removed, a majority of articles<br>
available on open access, and the benefit of an “unprecedented public<br>
good” from open access achieved.<br>
<br>
Fred Friend<br>
<br>
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL<br>
</div><br>