<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Yes, the </span><a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Finch/RCUK policy</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> has had its predictable perverse effects:</span><blockquote style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<strong>1.</strong> sustaining arbitrary, bloated Gold OA fees<br><strong>2.</strong> wasting scarce research funds<br><strong>3.</strong> double-paying publishers [subscriptions plus Gold]<br><strong>4.</strong> handing subscription publishers a hybrid-gold-mine<br>
<strong>5.</strong> enabling hybrid publishers to double-dip<br><strong>6.</strong> abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead of quality]<br><strong>7.</strong> imposing re-mix licenses that many authors don't want and most users and fields don't need<br>
<strong>8.</strong> inspiring subscription publishers to adopt and lengthen Green OA embargoes [to maxmize hybrid-gold revenues]<br><strong>9.</strong> handicapping Green OA mandates worldwide (by incentivizing embargoes)<br>
<strong>10.</strong> allowing journal-fleet publishers to confuse and exploit institutions and authors even more</blockquote><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">But the solution is also there (as already adopted in </span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Francophone Belgium</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> and proposed by </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">HEFCE for REF</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">):</span><blockquote style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<strong>a.</strong> funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit <br><strong>b.</strong> of the peer-reviewed final draft <br><strong>c.</strong> in the author's institutional repository <br><strong>d.</strong> immediately upon acceptance for publication<br>
<strong>e.</strong> whether journal is subscription orGold<br><strong>f.</strong> whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed<br><strong>g.</strong> whether license is transfered, retained or CC-BY;<br><strong>h.</strong> institutions implement repository's facilitated <a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">email eprint request Button</a>;<br>
<strong>i.</strong> institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for submitting publictions for research performance assessment;<br><strong>j.</strong> institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance</blockquote>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">This policy restores author choice, moots publisher embargoes, makes Gold and CC-BY completely optional, provides the incentive for author compliance and the natural institutional mechanism for verifying it, consolidates funder and institutional mandates, hsstens the natural death of OA embargoes, the onset of universal Green OA, and the resultant institutional subscription cancellations, journal downsizing and transition to Fair-Gold OA at an affordable, sustainable price, paid out of institutional subscription cancellation savings instead of over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's-Gold. And of course Fair-Gold OA will license all the re-use rights users need and authors want to allow.</span></div>
<div><br></div>On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:59 PM, LIBLICENSE <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:liblicense@gmail.com" target="_blank">liblicense@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
From: Richard Poynder <<a href="mailto:richard.poynder@gmail.com">richard.poynder@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:11:17 +0100<br>
<br>
The new Open Access policy introduced this year by Research Councils<br>
UK — in response to last year’s Finch Report — has been very<br>
controversial, particularly its exhortation to researchers to “prefer”<br>
Gold over Green Open Access<br>
<br>
When it was first announced there was an outcry from UK universities<br>
over the cost implications of the new policy. In response, on 7th<br>
September last year the UK Minister for Universities and Science David<br>
Willetts made an additional £10 million available to 30 research<br>
intensive universities to help pay OA transition costs.<br>
<br>
But the controversy has continued regardless, and in January this year<br>
the House of Lords Science & Technology Committee launched an inquiry<br>
into the policy. The subsequent report roundly criticised RCUK for the<br>
way it had been implemented, and concluded that lack of clarity about<br>
the policy and the guidance offered was ‘unacceptable’. RCUK responded<br>
by making a number of “clarifications”, and extended the permissible<br>
embargo period before research papers could be made available under<br>
Green OA from 6 and 12 months, to 24 months — an extension that led<br>
many OA advocates to complain that a bad policy had been made worse.<br>
<br>
In the meantime, the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills<br>
Select Committee had announced its own inquiry, which at the time of<br>
writing remains ongoing. During this inquiry a number of new issues<br>
have emerged, including complaints that some publishers are exploiting<br>
RCUK’s new policy to pump up their profits (profits that many believe<br>
are already unacceptably high). There are concerns, for instance, that<br>
the £10m in additional funding that Willetts provided is being used<br>
inappropriately. At the centre of these new concerns is Elsevier, the<br>
world’s largest scholarly publisher.<br>
<br>
More here: <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-uks-open-access-policy-controversy.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-uks-open-access-policy-controversy.html</a><br>
<br>
Richard Poynder<br>
</blockquote></div><br>