<font><font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif">[Forwarding from Frederick Friend, via the JISC-Repositories list. --Peter Suber.]<br><br></font></font><div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><b><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">The Finch
Report: a flawed and costly route to open access</font></b></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">The Finch Report on access to UK research publications
is to be welcomed in stating that “the UK should embrace the transition to open
access”, but the Report is flawed in its analysis of the two principal routes to
OA. On this flawed analysis is based the main recommendation in the report that
“a clear policy direction should be set towards support for publication in open
access or hybrid journals…. as the main vehicle for the publication of
research”. Were this recommendation to be adopted by the UK Government as it
stands, it would lead to higher expenditure from the public purse at a time of
financial stringency and perpetuate a structure for access to taxpayer-funded
research dominated by a small number of large publishers. Most policy statements
on OA have maintained a balance between ”green” and “gold” and the Finch Report
would have been more credible if it had retained that balance.</font></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">The bias towards the current structure of publication in
journals owned by well-established publishers can be illustrated from paragraphs
3.21, 3.22 and 3.23 on access to research data, rightly identified as a vital
issue. The Finch Report approach to making data accessible is as an add-on to
journal articles. This route may be suitable for some datasets in some
disciplines but looking at new developments in research communication as add-ons
to the current structure will not meet the challenges of data-led research. The
bias towards the current structure is also revealed in paragraph 3.28 on
“disintermediation”. The wording of this paragraph does not allow for the
possibility of “quality assurance” and “search and navigation systems” being
provided from within the academic community itself. Peer review and effective
searching are important but need not be provided through the existing publishing
structure.</font></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">A significant sign of the underlying bias in favour of
traditional publication comes in the Report’s comments on institutional
repositories. Paragraph 5.9 correctly refers to the difficulties created for
institutional repositories by copyright restrictions but goes on to claim that
these difficulties prevent repositories from providing “a sustainable basis for
a research communications system”. This is like blaming a person who has been
robbed by a taxi driver for not being able to pay the fare! If authors were able
to use a licence to publish instead of assigning all rights to a publisher,
repositories would be able to develop services to compete with those offered by
journals. The footnote to paragraph 5.9 is also unjustifiably dismissive of
“overlay journals”, especially as examples of such journals have already been
trialled. </font></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">In parallel to the dismissal of the repository model as
a basis for future development, in paragraph 6.10 the Report fails to recognise
flaws in a model giving priority to OA journal publishing. New OA publishers
need to be encouraged, but It would be ironic if the very publishers who through
lobbying have delayed the introduction of open access by several years were to
dominate the open access publishing market and – through high APCs as through
high subscriptions<span> </span>– take from the
public purse far more than their legitimate costs and legitimate surpluses
justify. The risk is that in an open access publishing environment authors will
continue to publish in the same journals as they do now, and that competition in
the level of APC will not be effective. The Report recognises that risk but
fails to appreciate the importance of enhanced repositories in providing an
alternative outlet for the publication of research reports and therefore
encouraging competition. </font></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">Fred Friend</font></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font style="FONT-SIZE:11pt">Honorary Director Scholarly Communication
UCL</font></p></div></div></div>
</div><br>