[GOAL] Finch Report - Finch inquiry’s open access tune won’t resonate in Australia the conversation

[Colin Steele]

The Conversation <http://theconversation.edu.au/> 

Finch inquiry’s open access tune won’t resonate in Australia 

Authors

1.	<http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401> 

Colin Steele <http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401> 

Emeritus Fellow at Australian National University <http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401> 

 

2.	Danny Kingsley <http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/danny-kingsley-3258> 

Sessional Academic and Manager, Scholarly Communication and ePublishing at Australian National University <http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/danny-kingsley-3258> 

 

A committee convened to examine how UK-funded research could be made more accessible released its report <http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/>  this week. The committee, chaired by Dame Janet Finch, was set up last year <http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/11-09-15/UK_government_announces_working_group_on_research_transparency.aspx>  by Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts.

The main thrust was: “The principle that the results of research that has been publicly funded should be freely accessible in the public domain is a compelling one, and fundamentally unanswerable”. This has been universally welcomed.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the Committee, which included universities, librarians and publishers among others, has favoured the “gold” approach for facilitating access to research. It downplays the less costly option of making work available through public databases – called repositories. This is often referred to as the “green” route to open access.

Publishers' tail wags the research dog

The report, which focused almost exclusively on scientific articles, has recommended “an additional 50-60 million pounds a year in expenditure from the higher education sector”. The bulk of this money – or 38 million pounds – is to pay for “article processing charges” (APC). These charges cover the cost of making the article freely available. This is a legitimate cost for 100% open access journals.

But the report also recommends payment of APC for “hybrid” journals. These charges for making a specific article available, while still charging subscriptions for the remainder of the journal. This constitutes “double dipping” by publishers on top of the substantial subscription costs universities are already paying through their libraries.

The Report has estimated the average APC as 1,750 pounds which is considerably higher than two <http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf>  studies <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/topics/opentechnologies/openaccess/reports/currentissues4.aspx>  have found.

In addition, 10 million pounds is being spent on extending the licensing of publisher’s content. A more flexible (and cheaper) option is author favoured Creative Commons <http://creativecommons.org.au/>  licenses.

The Finch Committee skims over the long-term consequences for the social sciences and humanities. In these disciplines, author or funder payments are substantially less available. Nor do they seem to be across global developments in open access monographs where Australia is a world leader.

It ain’t easy being green

Economic modelling shows that for research universities, the green route to open access is more cost effective <http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/finch-report-ucls-david-price-responds.html>  than the gold. Despite this, the Report recommended approximately only 10% of the proposed funds (three to five million pounds) be spent on repositories.

Australia, by comparison is favouring a green open access future. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has recently taken a pragmatic and cost effective approach to open access with their new open access policy <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/notices/2012/revised-policy-dissemination-research-findings> . This will require researchers to make a version of their funded published work available in their institutional repository.

The Finch Report calls for international cooperation in the open access endeavour. For Australia to play its part, the ARC and NHMRC need to synchronise their policies. Public leadership is needed at a high level from the government and the learned academies. And universities need to collaborate on cost effective scholarly communication options.

There is no doubt the present scholarly publishing system is under global scrutiny. Within three days a major debate has erupted in Britain on the implications of the Finch Report. When will the high-level debate take place in Australia?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines <http://theconversation.edu.au/republishing_and_linking_guidelines> , which are summarised here: 

1.	Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us <mailto:republish at theconversation.edu.au>  
2.	You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
3.	You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation <http://theconversation.edu.au> , or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
4.	If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
5.	If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
6.	It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
7.	Some articles include AAP images. If you don't have prior permission to run AAP images, then you'll need to remove them when you republish.

The full article is available here as HTML.

http://theconversation.edu.au/finch-inquirys-open-access-tune-wont-resonate-in-australia-7768 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
Copland Building 24
Room G037, Division of Information
The Australian National University 
Canberra  ACT 0200
Australia


Tel +61 (0)2 612 58983
Email: colin.steele at anu.edu.au <blocked::mailto:colin.steele at anu.edu.au> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120625/2a8d7c6b/attachment-0001.html