** Forwarded and Cross-Posted **<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Frederick Friend</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk">ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:37 AM<br>Subject: UK Government and RCUK open access policies<br>To: <a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@jiscmail.ac.uk">JISC-REPOSITORIES@jiscmail.ac.uk</a><br><br><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt"><span> </span>“BETTER ACCESS TO BRITISH SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC PAPERS BY 2014”?</span></b></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">The UK Government’s aim of “better access to British
scientific research and academic papers by 2014” (as stated in the BIS press
release of 16 July 2012) is to be welcomed. The problem with the Government’s
policy lies in the strategy for the achievement of the aim. The points below
suggest fundamental flaws in the Government’s strategy, flaws which threaten the
success of the policy and could set the UK on a slow and expensive route to open
access for many years beyond 2014. The Forum held at Imperial College on 27
September 2012 was very valuable in highlighting the issues but the response
from RCUK did nothing to dispel the following concerns about the Government and
RCUK policies. <span> </span></span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">The
Government policy rules out any addition to the open access pool of the UK’s
current research outputs through deposit in institutional repositories. Even if
the policy of payment to publishers for open access to journal articles works
smoothly, no single route to open access has been 100% successful in the past.
Not to use the opportunity of adding to UK open access content through
repositories at a lower cost is a perverse decision.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">The
possibility in the new RCUK policy for authors to deposit the final version of
their work in a repository without payment to a publisher is so qualified as to
be meaningless in practice. The deposit only becomes possible when the article
is published in those journals unable to offer an open access option through
payment of an “author publication charge”. Most publishers are unlikely to miss
the opportunity to gain additional income and will offer a paid open access
option. </span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">Unusually for
important policy statements, neither the UK Government policy statement of 16
July 2012 nor the RCUK open access policy provide any rationale or evidence for
the choice of open access journals as the sole (in the case of the Government,
preferred in the case of RCUK) route for access to current published research
outputs. The rationale outlined by the Government for open access itself is
valid but no case is made for the open access model chosen. </span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">No mechanism
has been set up by the UK Government to ensure that the taxpayer receives value
for money. The administration of the payment to publishers for open access is to
be left to the UK Research Councils and the university institutions through
block payments, reducing the funds available for new research programmes. The
payments to publishers for open access to individual articles will not be capped
and therefore no prediction can be made about the number of articles to be made
open access. </span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">Competition
between open access publishers has the potential to reduce the cost of
publishing in OA journals but will not be effective while RCUK leaves the
management of funds to institutions without involving authors. The separation of
authors from the cost of library subscriptions is one factor in the high cost of
journal subscriptions and this situation will be replicated in the cost of open
access publishing. </span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">Universities
will have to decide what happens to the dissemination of RC-funded research
results once the block grant has been used up. Will universities be expected to
fund APCs from their Funding Council income in that situation? University
repositories have been used by universities as records of publications from
their researchers but will that infrastructure fall into disuse as a result of
the move to open access journals as the sole or preferred dissemination
route?</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt"><span><span><font face="Symbol">·</font><span><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="FONT-SIZE:7pt">
</font></font></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">The Finch
Report identified a role for repositories as “a mechanism for enhancing the
links between publications and associated research data” but created
difficulties for researchers in using such links by allocating the publication
role to OA journals. Seamless re-use of text and data requires both to be
accessible through the same host.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">The success of the UK Government’s policy and the cost
to the taxpayer will always be at risk until the issues identified above have
been resolved. Will this Government be remembered for its wisdom in supporting
open access for publicly-funded research outputs or for its failure to implement
open access within a sustainable and cost-effective infrastructure?</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">Fred Friend</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt">Honorary Director Scholarly Communication
UCL</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt"><a href="http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk" target="_blank">http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk</a>
</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT:13pt;MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:14pt"><span>
</span></span></p></div></div></div>
</div><br>