<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Let's get this straight.</div><div><br></div>The Finch Report and the G8 statement are in agreement insofar as the desirability of open<div>access (OA) is concerned. </div><div><br></div><div>But then all funder and institutional OA policies worldwide today agree on that.</div><div><br></div><div>When it comes to how to go about mandating, monitoring and providing that OA, however, </div><div>Finch has done several flips, first insisting on Gold OA over Green OA whenever both are </div><div>offered (hybrid), then backing down in the face of an uproar from OA advocates, researchers and</div><div>institutions alike, and now leaving authors free to choose whether to provide Green or Gold.</div><div><br></div><div>The "transition period" is ambiguous depending on whether one is referring to the transition:</div><div><br></div><div>1. to embargoed OA (whether Green or Gold)</div><div>2. to immediate OA (whether Green or Gold)</div><div>3. to permissively licensed OA (whether Green or Gold)</div><div>4. to Gold OA</div><div><br></div><div>The first priorities (for OA) are obviously 1 and then 2. The fastest, surest, and cheapest</div><div>way to provide 1 and then 2 is via Green OA.</div><div><br></div><div>In backing down on Gold (good), Finch/RCUK, nevertheless failed to provide any</div><div>monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with Green (bad). It only monitors</div><div>how Gold money is spent.</div><div><br></div><div>Finch/RCUK also backed down on monitoring OA embargoes (which is bad, but</div><div>not as bad as not monitoring and ensuring immediate deposit.)</div><div><br></div><div>HEFCE has since proposed a fix to ensure immediate-deposit: without it, a paper</div><div>is not eligible for REF.</div><div><br></div><div>G8 says nothing for or against any of this, because it says nothing about </div><div>implementation details at all. But G8 certainly has not echoed Finch's preference</div><div>for Gold. It simply agrees (with everyone) that OA (1), immediate OA (2), </div><div>permissively licenced OA (3) and Gold OA (4) are all desirable, eventually.</div><div><br></div><div>Now the rest of the world can take its cue from the EU, the US and HEFCE,</div><div>and adopt a sensible, effective OA mandate that will generate 1, then transition</div><div>to 2, and then transition to 3 and 4 without ever having to abrogate authors'</div><div>free choice of journals or force authors to pay to publish if they do not wish to,</div><div>or cannot.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 2013-06-16, at 3:30 PM, Graham Triggs <<a href="mailto:grahamtriggs@GMAIL.COM">grahamtriggs@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div style="">I would draw your attention to the implementation section of the Finch Report</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style=""> (<a href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf">http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf</a>):</div>
<div style=""><br></div><div style="">"9.3. A shift in policy towards the support of publication in open access or hybrid </div><div>journals is at the heart of our recommendations. Nevertheless, for the reasons we </div><div>
have set out in this report, we believe that at least for the short to medium term, the </div><div>Government, the Research Councils and the Higher Education Funding Councils </div><div>should seek increases in access through all three mechanisms – open access </div>
<div>journals, extensions to licensing , and repositories."</div><div><br></div><div style="">The report is not geared towards gold OA (and hybrid journals) at the exclusion of green and repositories</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">(and if they are as "free" as is suggested, there is no reason to have a repository holding copies of gold OA</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">material, to have your own assurance of preservation, access, internal reporting / compliance, etc.).</div>
<div style=""><br></div><div style="">And yet, I'm sure most of us can see the value not just in free access at some point, but timely access to</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">permissively licensed material. Whilst the Finch report recognises this as the ultimate goal, it acknowledges</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">that there has to be a transition period.</div>
<div style=""><br></div><div style="">Further, I'll also draw your attention to the G8 Science Ministers statement, and immediately above point 4. IV -</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">which you quoted - it states:</div><div style=""><br></div><div style="">"We recognise the potential benefits of immediate global access to and unrestricted use of published peer-reviewed,</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">publicly funded research results in line with the necessity of IP protection."<br>
</div><div style=""><br></div><div style="">Just like Finch, the G8 statement recognises the value of immediate access under a permissive licence.</div><div style=""><br></div><div style="">imho, the Finch report and the G8 statement are in agreement.</div>
<div style=""><br></div><div style="">Regards,</div><div style="">G</div><div style=""><br></div><div style=""><br></div><div style=""><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 June 2013 23:11, Friend, Fred <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:f.friend@ucl.ac.uk" target="_blank">f.friend@ucl.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">The statement from the G8 Science Ministers is very welcome, not least because it does NOT follow the Finch Report/UK Government "clear policy direction... towards support for publication in open access or hybrid journals, funded by APCs, as the main vehicle for the publication of research", but rather follows the policies adopted by Governments all over the world in recognising "that there are different routes to open access (green, gold and other innovative models) which need to be explored and potentially developed in a complementary way". It will be interesting to see whether the UK Government will now follow the G8 Statement it has hosted and support the development of green open access in parallel with its support for APC-paid gold open access. Such a commitment would do a great deal to heal the damage caused by the Government's hasty response to the Finch Report.<br>
<br>
The G8 Statement is also welcome for its commitment to open scientific research data. This an area in which the UK Government is taking a great interest, and it is also an area in which international collaboration is vital if we are to achieve the maximum benefits for the global economy and society.<br>
<br>
Fred Friend<br>
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL<br>
<br>
_</blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>