[GOAL] Re: UK Business, Innovation and Skills Committee Publishes Government Response and RCUK response to its report on Open Access
Stevan Harnad
amsciforum at gmail.com
Tue Nov 26 18:33:43 GMT 2013
*RCUK: compliance targets for the numbers of papers made available Open
Access will be increased year-on-year, as will the funding we make
available to support Article Processing Charges (APCs).*The RCUK compliance
target should be for OA (Green + Gold), not just for Gold; and the annual
OA target should be 100%.
Funding-based annual targets slow OA growth whilst making it much more
costly to provide OA.
What is needed is a mechanism for monitoring and ensuring timely
compliance<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=mechanism+compliance+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>.
That's what institutions (recruited by
HEFCE<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=hefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>'s
immediate-deposit mandate forREF <http://www.ref.ac.uk/>2020 eligibility)
will provide.
*RCUK: During the transition period, we are allowing authors to use
journals with embargo periods longer than the headline figure in the
policy, but in line with those agreed by the Government, for publicly
funded research where no funds are available to cover the payment of APCs.*This
is unclear. Relaxing the enforcement of embargo limits on Green is good,
because it preserves author freedom of choice of journal. But if it is only
for when there's no money to pay for Gold, it again incentivizes publishers
to offer over-priced, double-paid hybrid Gold and to adopt or lengthen
Green embargoes so as to collect as much extra UK Gold revenue as available.
*RCUK: We are not convinced that institutional repositories are always the
best way of providing [OA], and that solutions such as 'request a copy'
button or emailing the researcher for a copy of the paper are not scalable
to a wider constituency of users.*RCUK has misunderstood the
repositories' request-a-copy
Button<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=request+button+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>.
It only requires a key press by the requestor and a key press by the
author; the emailing is then automatic, by the repository software.
It is not clear what RCUK means by "not scalable": Any requestor with email
access can request a copy, for either research or educational purposes.
The purpose of the Button is
(1) to make immediate-deposit mandates adoptable and scaleable to all
institutions and funders;
(2) to provide Almost-OA during any embargo period;
(3)to immunize against publisher embargoes on Green OA;
(4) to make sure authors only need to deposit once, institutionally (from
there, deposits can be exported or harvested);
(5) to recruit institutions to monitor and ensure compliance with OA
mandates;
(6) to make sure all articles are deposited;
(7) to document the demand for OA;
(8) to increase global demand and pressure for immediate OA;
(9) to hasten the transition from Almost-OA to OA.
*RCUK: the headline figure quoted in the report that 60% of journals
already allow immediate un-embargoed self-archiving of the peer-reviewed
version of the article does not reflect the reality for Research Council
funded authors. A comparable figure for journals used by Research Council
funded authors is between 17% and 20% .*
Sixty percent <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php> continues to
be the worldwide estimate of the proportion of subscription journals that
do not embargo Green OA. It is not clear where or how RCUK draws its
UK-specific estimates, but it is likely that they are factoring the perverse
effects<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=perverse+effects+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
of
the Finch/RCUK policy itself, which has induced major publishers like
Elsevier<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=elsevier+double-talk+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
--
which does not embargo Green OA -- to adopt embargoes for UK content (if UK
authors seek the re-use rights RCUK prefers) unless hybrid Gold fees are
paid, as well as to add pseudo-legal hedges about
"voluntariness<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=voluntary+or+voluntariness+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>"
and "systematicity<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=systematic+OR+systematicity+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>"
to its formerly unhedged policy on Green OA.
RCUK is confusing cause and effect in its assessment of embargoes: The UK's
explicit funding and preference for CC-BY Gold and downgrading of Green as
"embargoed OA" has induced (some) publishers to adopt or lengthen Green
embargoes. RCUK now cites this effect as if it were a justification for
RCUK's having adopted what in fact caused it in the first place.
*RCUK: RCUK has a preference for immediate, unrestricted, on-line access to
peer-reviewed and published research papers, free of any access charge and
with maximum opportunities for re-use. This is commonly referred to as the
'gold' route to Open Access. RCUK prefers 'gold' Open Access**Gold OA* means
the publisher provides the OA. *Green OA* means the author provides it.
*Gratis OA* means free online access. *Libre OA
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html>* means
free online access plus "maximum opportunities for re-use" (e.g., CC-BY).
Gold OA does not necessarily entail Gold OA APCs and most Gold OA is not
Libre OA.
Both Green and Gold OA can be immediate or embargoed.
RCUK conflates "Gold OA" with immediate OA and Libre OA.
RCUK conflates "Green OA" with embargoed OA.
Hence most of the RCUK's evidence and reasoning amounts to self-justifying
definitions and self-fulfilling prophecy.
*RCUK: by going directly to the journal web site a reader can be confident
that they are accessing the final peer-reviewed and formally published
record of research.*By paying publishers a considerable amount of extra
money for Gold OA, over and above what publishers are already being paid
for subscriptions, the UK can indeed give readers this tiny increase in
confidence -- But the reader can be almost as confident in the Green OA
version, without this vast extra payment.
*Strengthening deposit mandates to increase open access*
*BISCOM:* "RCUK should build on its original world leading policy by
reinstating and strengthening the immediate deposit mandate in its original
policy (in line with
HEFCE<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=hefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>'s
proposals) and improving the monitoring and enforcement of mandated deposit
(paragraph 31)."
*RCUK:The current RCUK policy is much stronger in requiring deposit and
access within clearly defined time periods. Reinstating individual council
policies would be a backward step.*
Former council mandates were Green, but weak. They did not require
immediate deposit, but only deposit after an allowable embargo period had
elapsed, with no monitoring to ensure timely compliance.
A forward step is to upgrade the former council mandates to require
immediate institutional deposit, whether or not access to the deposit is
embargoed for an allowable period (as HEFCE has since proposed, for
eligibility for REF2020). Institutions monitor and ensure compliance with
funding conditions and the institutional repository's request-a-copy Button
tides over usage needs during the embargo.
The backward step is to prefer to double-pay for immediate Libre Gold with
the UK's scarce research funds -- and to portray Green OA as meaning
embargoed Gratis OA or a version of which one cannot even be confident. (To
have bought into this specious argument is the surest sign of how publisher
interests have been allowed to penetrate what ought to have been UK
research interests.)
*Pure Gold and Hybrid Gold*
RCUK is completely silent about the fundamental objections BIS raised
against funding hybrid Gold (subscriptions + Gold OA APCs):
(1) Hybrid Gold is arbitrarily over-priced.
(2) Hybrid Gold is double-paid (subscriptions + Gold OA APCs)
(3) Hybrid Gold makes double-dipping possible
(4) Double-dipping subscription rebates to all subscribing institutions
worldwide only returns 6% of
6%<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=6%25+rebate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
of
UK's Gold OA APC subsidy to the UK.
(5) Subsidizing and encouraging hybrid Gold encourages publisher adoption
and lengthening of Green OA embargoes to pressure authors to pick and pay
for Gold.
*BISCOM:* "Given the importance of ensuring that UK open access policy does
not result in reduced access in the UK or worldwide, the Government and
RCUK must monitor and evaluate the impact of their open access policy on
embargo lengths imposed by UK publishers. The impact on different subject
areas must also be carefully monitored. That information must inform future
meetings of the Finch Group and RCUK's reviews of open access policy
(paragraph 51)."
*RCUK: we welcome the recent reduction in embargo periods by Elsevier, such
that the majority of its journals now offer a green option with 12/24 month
embargo periods in line with those agreed by the Government for publicly
funded research where no funds are available to cover the payment of APCs,
as well as a hybrid-gold option.*
RCUK is astoundingly ill-informed: Since
2004<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg3771>,
well before Finch/RCUK, Elsevier has not embargoed Green OA at all. Under
the incentive of the Gold OA funding mandated by Finch/RCUK, Elsevier has
now adopted explicit embargoes for Libre Green, as well as some
(meaningless) double-talk<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=elsevier+double-talk+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
about
Gratis Green (it must be
"voluntary<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=voluntary+or+voluntariness+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>"
and must not be
"systematic<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=systematic+OR+systematicity+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
").
Nothing for RCUK to welcome, if RCUK's interests are with research access
rather than publisher profits.
*Affordability of APCs for authors and UK research organizations*
*BISCOM:* "We are concerned that the expectation appears to be that
universities and research organisations will fund the balance of APCs and
open access costs from their own reserves. We look to the Government and
RCUK to mitigate against the impact on university budgets. The Government
must not underestimate the significance of this issue (paragraph 64)."
*RCUK: Publication of research results is an integral part of the research
process, and is thus a legitimate part of the cost of undertaking research.
RCUK is committed to providing the necessary funding to cover the costs of
publishing papers arising from the research funded by the Research
Councils.*
This re-statement of the Wellcome Trust
mantra<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=wellcome+publication+research+costs+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
continues
to ignore the fact that the UK (but not Wellcome) also has to pay the costs
of journal subscriptions. Hence the Gold APC costs are over and above
subscription costs (which are likewise "a legitiame part of the cost of
undertaking research").
That means Gold OA APCs today are needless double-payments: "Fool's
Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+(fools+OR+fool's)+gold>."
The only way they can turn into "Fair
Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+%22fair+gold%22>"
is if Green OA first prevails, eventually allowing subscriptions to be
cancelled<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=transition+green+gold+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
(and
driving down publication costs by offloading access-provision and archiving
onto Green OA repositories). Then the price of Gold will drop to a fair,
affordable, sustainable level, single-paid out of the institutional
subscription cancellation savings, instead of double-paid, needlessly, as
now, out of scarce research funds. -- Needless, because while subscriptions
are still being paid, Green OA can provide the OA.
*RCUK: The shared ultimate goal of full Gold open access*The proximal goal
(still far away) is 100% Gratis OA; this can be reached by mandating Green
OA (with the immediate-deposit<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
clause
+ Button<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=button+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>).
The ultimate goal is affordable, sustainable OA, at a fair price, with as
many re-use rights as users need and researchers want to provide.
*BISCOM:* "The Government and RCUK should clarify that Gold open access is
the ultimate goal of, rather than the primary route to, their open access
policies. We recommend that the Government and RCUK reconsider their
preference for Gold open access during the five year transition period, and
give due regard to the evidence of the vital role that Green open access
and repositories have to play as the UK moves towards full open access
(paragraph 70)."
*RCUK: RCUK's preference is for immediate, unrestricted on-line access, aka
Gold open access, for reasons defined in section 2 of this response.*
Gold OA means publisher-provided OA. RCUK is referring to immediate,
fee-based Libre Gold OA -- but re-naming it "Gold OA" as if to contrast
with Green OA.
Green OA means author-provided OA. RCUK is trying to portray Green OA as
embargoed Gratis Green OA. This is publishers' preferred way of spinning
the meaning of "Green OA": the same publishers that are embargoing Green OA
in an attempt to make their definition a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And, regrettably, under the influence of the publishing lobby (unwittingly
aided and abetted by the Wellcome
Trust<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=Wellcome+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
as
well as the minority of researchers who are in a great hurry for Libre
OA<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=libre+OR+cc-by+OR+re-use+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>),
Finch/RCUK have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.
*BISCOM:* "RCUK's current guidance provides that the choice of Green or
Gold open access lies with the author and the author's institution, even if
the Gold option is available from the publisher. This is incompatible with
the Publishers Association's decision tree, and RCUK should therefore
withdraw its endorsement of the decision tree as soon as possible, to avoid
further confusion within the academic and publishing communities (paragraph
71)."
*RCUK: …the 'decision tree'… represents the post-transition 'end state' ...
institutions now understand the flexibility we are offering during the
transition period, and that the 'decision tree' has to be seen within the
context of this flexibility.*
Why attach a decision tree to a new policy, now, that authors are trying to
understand, now, when the decision tree does not apply now, but will only
apply eventually (maybe)?
(Is this not yet another way of digging heels in with: "My mind's made up:
Don't confuse me with
facts!<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1074-.html>
")
*BISCOM:* "If RCUK and the Government continue to maintain their preference
for Gold, they should amend their policies so that APCs are only paid to
publishers of pure Gold rather than hybrid journals. This would eliminate
the risk of double dipping by journals, and encourage innovation in the
scholarly publishing market (paragraph 77)."
*RCUK: RCUK made an explicit decision not to restrict the RCUK block grants
only to covering APC costs for pure Gold journals. To have done so would
have restricted the choice of authors as to where they could publish their
research by limiting them to pure Gold journals if they wanted to 'go
gold'... RCUK commitment to provide APC funding without restriction has
already driven change within the publishing industry, with many major
subscription journals now offering a hybrid-gold option for the journals
that Research Council authors chose to publish in. It is unlikely that
publishers would have made these changes if RCUK had restricted its APC
funding to pure Gold journals.*
"My mind's made up! Don't confuse me with
facts!<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1074-.html>"
-- facts about over-pricing, double-payment, double-dipping, "rebates," and
perverse effects:
Gold payments are in any case double-payments (subscriptions + Gold APCs).
If paid to the same publisher (hybrid Gold), they also allow publisher
double-dipping. But even if not double-dipped, but instead paid back as a
rebate to all subscribing institutions, *that just means the UK's 6%
double-payment subsidizes all subscribers worldwide with a 6% subscription
reduction!* The UK itself only gets back
6%<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=6%25+rebate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
of
the Gold APC subsidy it has provided for the rest of the world.
And far from following the UK's profligacy with this needless foray into
paying for Fool's
Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+(fools+OR+fool's)+gold>,
the rest of the world -- which mandates Green, not Gold -- is left saddled
with the perverse effects of the UK's incentives to hybrid Gold publishers:
offer hybrid gold, pick your price, and adopt or lengthen embargoes on
Green!
*RCUK: RCUK considers that publishers need to ensure that subscriptions
paid by institutions for hybrid journals reflect any additional revenue
that the journal has received through the APCs that the institution has
paid in order to publish 'gold' papers in that journal.*
See above: RCUK thinks that a 6% rebate of a needless 6% double-spend (6%
of 6%) is sufficient solace. It is not clear that UK tax-payers would or
should see it that way. Nor should UK researchers. (Nor should researchers
worldwide, in view of the perverse effects of UK policy on Green OA
embargoes worldwide.)
*RCUK: Whilst RCUK does not restrict its policy to supporting only pure
Gold journals, institutions are free to decide how they allocate their RCUK
block grants, and this could include declining to make APC payments to
specific hybrid Gold journals that institutions may consider guilty of
'double-dipping'.*
How are institutions supposed to figure out whether publishers are
double-dipping?
The best thing institutions can do with the scarce research funds RCUK has
needlessly re-directed to double-paying publishers for Fool's
Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+(fools+OR+fool's)+gold>
is
to make sure all their authors immediately deposit their final, refereed
drafts in the institutional repository and make them Green OA as soon as
possible.
And instead of wasting the RCUK OA funds on Fool's Gold, they should spend
them on implementing a reliable mechanism for monitoring and ensuring
timely compliance with the HEFCE immediate-deposit
requirement<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=hefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
.
*Stevan Harnad*
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Richard Poynder <
richard.poynder at btinternet.com> wrote:
> *Business, Innovation and Skills Committee*
>
>
>
> *Select Committee Announcement No.35*
>
> *Tuesday 26 November 2013*
>
>
>
> *COMMITTEE PUBLISHES GOVERNMENT RESPONSE AND RCUK RESPONSE TO *
>
> *ITS REPORT ON OPEN ACCESS*
>
>
>
> Today, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is publishing the
> Government Response and RCUK Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of
> Session 2013–14, Open Access.
>
>
>
> *Commenting on the Government Response, Adrian Bailey MP, Chair of the
> Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, said:*
>
>
>
> *“I am pleased that the Government has embraced many of our
> recommendations. The following aspects of the Response are to be welcomed
> in particular:*
>
>
>
> · The Government’s statement that publishers must “immediately
> develop” sustainable solutions to “improve on the transparency” of the
> effect of payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs) on subscription
> rates to counter double dipping by publishers. The Government’s important
> clarification that it “does not consider it appropriate for publishers to
> rely on retrospectively amortising their APC revenue to discount global
> subscription rates” will provide clear direction for publishers in this
> respect.
>
>
>
> · The Government’s agreement that Higher Education Institutions
> should not be required by publishers to accept non-disclosure clauses in
> publishing contracts which involve public funds.
>
>
>
> · The confirmation that authors have freedom of choice over where
> to publish, and whether they opt for the Gold or Green route to open
> access. The recent Finch group Review of Progress adopts the same position.
> Our Report considered such freedom of choice to be fundamental, and it is a
> positive development that there is consensus from the Government, the Finch
> group and RCUK on this point.
>
>
>
> · The Government’s decision to commission a study to assess the
> feasibility of a full cost benefit analysis of its own open access policy.
> The Government announced its open access policy 16 months ago. The delay in
> undertaking a full cost benefit analysis inevitably raises questions about
> the extent to which the Government’s open access policy is evidence based.
>
>
>
> *Our inquiry has, from the start, maintained a clear focus on increasing
> access to publicly funded research. The fact that “many universities have
> established a preference for Green OA”, as the Finch Review of Progress has
> recently found, shows the disparity between the express preference of the
> Government and the Finch group for Gold open access funded by APCs, and the
> economic realities that UK HEIs and researchers are dealing with.*
>
> *The Committee will continue to watch this policy area closely and will
> want to see evidence of significant progress by the time of RCUK’s review
> in late 2014.”*
>
>
>
> *--ENDS--*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131126/8e19f78d/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list