[GOAL] Double blogs: "Biting the hand that feeds – the obfuscation of publishers" and "Open Access policy, procedure & process at Cambridge"

[Dr D.A. Kingsley]

<Apologies for cross posting>

Hello all,

The latest Unlocking Research blogs from the Office of Scholarly Communication take a critical look at what a recent HEFCE report has euphemistically described as a ‘complex environment’. In other words, the inability for both funders and publishers to align their policies in any way either to each other or within their own stakeholder group.

We have two sister blogs:

Biting the hand that feeds – the obfuscation of publishers - https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1657

Let’s not pull any punches here. We are unimpressed. Late last week HEFCE published a blog: Are UK universities on track to meet open access requirements? <http://blog.hefce.ac.uk/2017/09/14/are-uk-universities-on-track-to-meet-open-access-requirements/> In the blog HEFCE identified the key issues in meeting OA requirements as:

  *   The complexity of the OA environment
  *   Resource constraints
  *   Cultural resistance to OA
  *   Inadequate technical infrastructure.

Right. So the deliberate obstruction to Open Access by the academic publishing industry doesn’t factor at all?

<snip>

Open Access policy, procedure & process at Cambridge - https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1613
 The Open Access policies developed and applied by the UK’s major research funders (HEFCE<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/Policy/>, RCUK <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/policy/> and COAF<https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/charity-open-access-fund>) all aim to achieve one thing: freedom of knowledge for all. However, the specific mechanisms these funders have taken to achieve this goal varies considerably and requires careful implementation from higher education institutions (HEIs).

In this blog post, I’ll describe the different workflows required to meet each funder’s expectations and then look at how these policies intersect with each other to form a tangled web of policy nightmare. Some of the decisions and processes will be peculiar to the University of Cambridge, especially when it comes to decisions around funding for article processing charges (APCs), but the general approach will be true of most UK HEIs.

<snip>

Let the games begin.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, CB3 9DR
e: dak45 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>
p: 01223 747 437
m: 07711 500 564
t: @dannykay68
w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk/>
b: https://unlocking<https://unlocking/> research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk
o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170919/c84a7b52/attachment-0001.html