<p style="text-align:center;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:18px;margin-left:0px;font:normal normal normal 12px/normal Georgia;color:rgb(51,50,51)"><b><a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420628">ADAM TICKELL'S FOUR TRICKY FRINGILLISMS</a></b></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">ADAM TICKELL: <i>"Critically, the minister for universities and science wanted to ensure that all relevant stakeholders - universities, funders, learned societies and publishers - were represented"</i></p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">The only relevant "stakeholders" are those by and for whom research is funded, conducted and published. That does not include publishers, whether commercial or learned-society."</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233"><a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420628">ADAM TICKELL</a>: <i>"Open access is not a significant issue for most academic researchers: we already have access to most research papers. "</i></p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">Is Adam Tickell one of the rare academics who has not tumbled (frequently) on an access-denied link in searching the literature in his field?</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">ADAM TICKELL: <i>"Many UK-based learned societies rely on income from publishing - most of which is export income - to remain viable"</i> </p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">Are Green Open Access Mandates rendering anyone's publishing income nonviable? And are learned societies' interests the interests learned research or the interests of sustaining their publishing income?</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">ADAM TICKELL: <i>"As green was unacceptable to funders unless learned societies and publishers were willing to allow it with minimal embargo periods (which would undermine their business models), the group recommended gold as part of a mix that includes elements of all forms of open access." </i></p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p style="margin:0px 0px 18.0px 0px;font:12.0px Georgia;color:#333233">Are the interests of publishers, whether commercial or learned-society, the arbiters of what is in the interest of those by and for whom research is funded, conducted and published (sic)? And what was the other part of the mix? This?:</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#333233"><b>FINCH ON GREEN:</b> <i>"The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories… [so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead] be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing, particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"</i></p>