<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233">**Cross-Posted **</p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233"><br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233">
The <a href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf"><span style="text-decoration:underline;color:#003366">Finch Report</span></a>, under strong and palpable influence from the publishing lobby, instead of recommending extending and optimizing the UK's worldwide lead in providing Green OA, cost-free, through institutional and funder self-archiving mandates, has recommended abandoning Green OA and Green OA mandates and instead spending extra money (£50-60 million yearly) on paying publishers' Gold OA fees as well as a UK blanket national site-license fee to cover whatever is not yet Gold OA (i.e., all the journals that UK institutions currently subscribe to, rather like the "Big Deals" publishers have been successfully negotiating with individual institutions and consortia):</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233;min-height:16.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233"><b>Finch on Green:</b> <i>"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]…"</i></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233;min-height:16.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233"><b>Finch on Gold:</b><i> "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…</i></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233;min-height:16.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233">Now here are some of the actual figures behind the above assertions. Let readers come to their own conclusions about the relative success, cost, benefits, cost-effectiveness, growth potential and timetable of mandating Green OA vs funding Gold OA:</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233"><br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html</a></p>