[GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Re: Re: Clarification of the new OA policy from the RCUK

[Couture Marc]

I think there is a real danger here in this new approach taken by RCUK, and that it concerns the whole scientific community.

I sense that commercial publishers have now found, or been given, a way to justify their existence (not to mention their huge profit margins).

In light of the plausible generalization of green OA through mandates, they were certainly seeing the time coming where all they could say they really contribute to science communication is peer-review management, from which they couldn't ask the kind of money the ask now (I exclude here copy editing, whose added value is a matter of debate, when it's provided at all).

But comes the highly noble (and modern) aim of Libre OA, through CC-BY licenses, and Bingo! Publishers, not self-archiving, is the way to provide it, and funders will be happy to pay what it costs (or, more precisely, what publishers will ask).

Some may invoke the "F" word (as in FUD), but I think there is sound reason to fear, denounce, and fight against the new RCUK policy, or its eventual adoption by other funders.

And though I'm strongly in favour of freedom and openness in science communication, I really think this recent move lead us in the wrong direction.

Marc Couture