<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen<br>members)... [1]</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch<br>herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any special<br>influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had.<br>Does Professor Harnad? [2]<br><br>Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the<br>conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the<br>UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3]<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>[1] </div><div>There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three</div><div>publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing </div><div>open access to publicly funded research.</div><div><br></div><div>[2] </div><div>The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the</div><div>ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years</div><div>(ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself</div><div>in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is</div><div>futile and very ill-received by the research community). </div><div><br></div><div>The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:</div><div>"<i>Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA</i>."</div><div><br></div><div>The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of </div><div>publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:</div><div><br></div><div><div><b>Finch on Green:</b> "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders </div><div>nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that </div><div>researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories… </div><div>[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead] </div><div>be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing, </div><div>particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and </div><div>in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"</div><div><br></div><div><b>Finch on Gold:</b> "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be </div><div>seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public </div><div>funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements" </div><div>to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open </div><div>access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions] </div><div>for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and </div><div>health sectors…"</div><div><br></div></div><div>But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,</div><div>instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates</div><div>the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations</div><div>of the Finch committee:</div><div><br></div><div>"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that </div><div>is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be </div><div>published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option</div><div>[Gold OA] <b>or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional </b></div><div><b>repository</b> [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo </div><div>period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and… </div><div>ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"</div><div><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/">http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/</a></div><div><br></div><div>[3] </div><div>The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select </div><div>Committee on Science and Technology were based on </div><div>23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one</div><div>of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the</div><div>outcome, it was evidence and reasons.</div><div><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm</a></div><div><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm</a></div><div><br></div><div>The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this: </div><div><br></div><div><div>“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions </div><div>establish institutional repositories on which their published output </div><div>can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online. </div><div>It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government </div><div>funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all </div><div>of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that </div><div>the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded </div><div>researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”</div><div><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm</a></div><div><br></div><div>At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under </div><div>pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select </div><div>Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and </div><div>many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway. </div><div><br></div><div>As a result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to </div><div>Open Access.</div><div><br></div><div>If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade </div><div>repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and </div><div>unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.</div><div><br></div><div>Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,</div><div>reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.</div><div> </div><div>Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds, </div><div>instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly </div><div>for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA </div><div>by mandating it.</div><div><br></div><div>If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role </div><div>in the global transition to universal OA.</div><div><br></div></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>________________________________<br>From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400<br><br>Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not<br>paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the<br>recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are<br>pointedly rejecting them!<br><br>RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.<br><br>Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have<br>recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce<br>research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.<br><br>Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the<br>course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They<br>even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,<br>again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)<br><br>What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's<br>scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and<br>redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.<br><br>The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.<br><br>But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's<br>just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.<br><br>(A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted<br>efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping<br>Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will<br>fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the<br>worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)<br><br>Stevan Harnad<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>