[GOAL] Re: RCUK publishes revised guidance on Open Access

[Stevan Harnad]

RCUK has now made it clear that authors are free to choose Green or Gold.

That means authors no longer have to switch journals or pay for Gold if
they do not wish to.

But RCUK has done nothing to implement a compliance monitoring and
verification mechanism for Green: Quite the opposite. RCUK has simply
turned the entire Green option into an unmonitored, unverified, open-ended
delay of 24 months or more. (The only compliance monitoring proposed so far
is of how institutions spend the Gold funds!)

But the proposed new HEFCE/REF
mandate<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/news/news/2013/open_access_letter.pdf>has
offered the remedy:
*To be eligible for REF, all articles need to be deposited in the author's
institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for
publication*(regardless of whether the journal is subscription or
Gold, and regardless
of whether the deposit is embargoed or unembargoed).

This (by recruiting UK institutions in monitoring and ensuring immediate
deposit) will repair the glaring gap in the RCUK mandate.

And with the help of the institutional repositories faciltated "request
copy" Button, immediate-deposit will also tide over researcher access needs
during any embargo as delayed deposit could not have done.

The only remaining perverse effect of the RCUK mandate is the obvious
incentive it gives to subscription publishers (including those who
currently endorse immediate, unembargoed Green OA) to instead offer hybrid
Gold and adopt and extend a Green OA embargo beyond the RCUK limit to
increase the pressure on authors to pick and pay for the hybrid Gold option.

But since the RCUK is not even bothering to monitor author compliance with
the increasingly open-ended embargo limits, if the HEFCE/REF
immediate-deposit mandate is adopted, this potential perverse effect of the
RCUK mandate is somewhat reduced (though still not zero). But perhaps the
reduced uptake of the UK Gold option, now that it is clarified that authors
are free to choose -- along with the HEFCE/REF
immediate-deposit requirement irrespective of Gold or embargoes -- will
make the damage from the RCUK policy on international Green OA mandates
negligible.

Stevan Harnad

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Steve Hitchcock <sh94r at ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> The objective of an open access policy, one would guess, is to increase
> open access. If, on a rough rule of thumb, 20% of authors are providing
> open access and 80% are not, then the policy needs to target the 80%
> without disadvantaging the 20%.
>
> Take the green embargo decision tree in the RCUK policy, which Heather's
> extract refers to: "In some circumstances, where funding for APCs is
> unavailable during the transition period, longer embargo periods may be
> allowable." Doubled, up to 24 months.
>
> Most authors, it has been shown, choose journals rather than access
> routes, Consider a current toll-access journal introduces a rather high
> hybrid OA fee. Not untypical. Authors publishing in this journal will
> continue to choose it, but the institutional committee responsible for
> managing the OA publishing block grant has scarce funds and refuses to pay
> the OA fees in the case of this journal. The green OA author continues to
> do what they have always done and self-archive, but now they have to apply
> a 24 month embargo, where before there wasn't one. The non-OA author, well,
> doesn't care. Publication as normal. Nothing gained, nothing lost. There is
> no gold payment; the policy may require them to self-archive where they
> didn't before, but to no practical OA purpose that this author would
> recognise.
>
> Looking at the other flaws in the policy pointed out by Stevan Harnad,
> there is not even the fall back of the eprint button for the non-OA author.
>
> These are embargoes enshrined in funder policy, not publisher FUD.
> Finch/RCUK have been accused of favouring the publisher view in achieving
> open access, but this serves neither.
>
> So I agree with Heather. This is a policy that continues to incentivise
> against green, even in cases where there is no alternative, and it could in
> some cases decrease open access.
>
> Steve Hitchcock
> WAIS Group, Building 32
> School of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
> Email: sh94r at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Twitter: @stevehit
> Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
> Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379
>
> On 6 Mar 2013, at 20:39, Heather Morrison wrote:
>
> > My prediction is increased costs for scholarly publishing and a decrease
> in access as a result of this well-intentioned but poorly thought out
> policy. My comments below are posted here:
> >
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/03/predicting-increasing-costs-and.html
> >
> > The Research Councils UK (RCUK) has just issued a revised OA Policy and
> Guidance
> http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicyandRevisedguidance.pdf
> >
> > This is a stellar example of well-intentioned but poorly crafted
> government policy. I predict that this policy will increase the costs of
> scholarly publishing by creating an incentive for publishers to develop
> open access article processing fees with no incentive to keep prices
> reasonable and actually decrease access, by providing an incentive for
> journals to increase embargo periods (to force authors to choose the OA via
> APF).
> >
> > Relevant sections of the policy:
> >
> > Expectations of researchers:
> >
> > Researchers, as the generators of all of the research papers and
> responsible for much of their peer review, are expected to publish any
> peer-reviewed research papers... in journals that are compliant with the
> RCUK policy on Open Access.
> >
> > Compliance of journals:
> >
> > RCUK recognises a journal as being compliant with this policy if:
> >
> > The journal provides, via its own website, immediate and unrestricted
> access to the final published version of the paper, which should be made
> available using the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This may
> involve payment of an ‘Article Proces sing Charge’ (APC) to the publisher.
> >
> > Or,
> >
> > The journal consents to deposit of the final Accepted Manuscript in any
> repository, without restriction on non-commercial re-use and within a
> defined period. No APC will be payable to the publisher. In this latter
> case, RCUK will accept a delay of no more than six months between on-line
> publication and the final Accepted Manuscript becoming Open Access. In the
> case of papers in the arts, humanities and social sciences (which will
> mainly be funded by the AHRC and the ESRC), the maximum embargo period will
> be twelve months. In some circumstances, where funding for APCs is
> unavailable during the transition period, longer embargo periods may be
> allowable (see section 3.5).
> > Comment: this policy provides journals an incentive to offer an open
> access option via article processing fees which authors are forced to
> choose if the journal's embargo period is longer than what is acceptable to
> RCUK. The UK only produces about 6% of the world's scholarly literature, so
> OA to this literature will not enable UK libraries to cancel subscriptions.
> To maximize revenue, a journal can provide an OA via APF option at the
> price of their choosing and extend the embargo period to avoid having
> authors choose the self-archiving option. The majority of scholarship is
> not nationally based, so increased embargo periods are unlikely to be
> restricted to the UK. This means that the UK is likely to enjoy less access
> to non-UK scholarship in the coming years than would be the case if this
> policy had not been adopted.
> >
> > Thus in spite of the best of intentions this is a poor policy and let's
> hope funders elsewhere do not look to this as a model. Fortunately in this
> case the US is getting it right!
> >
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/02/kudos-and-thanks-to-us-sponsors-of.html
> >
> > Another problem with the policy is the assumption that licensing (CC-BY)
> can achieve the re-usability that is desired. As I've discussed in detail
> elsewhere
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html,
> this just won't work. The result will be a corpus of CC-BY licensed
> locked-down PDFs or even more open documents with locked-down image-based
> charts and graphs that are useless for text and data-mining and re-use.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Dr. Heather Morrison
> > The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL at eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130307/ef2a74e3/attachment.html