<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Friend, Fred</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:f.friend@ucl.ac.uk">f.friend@ucl.ac.uk</a>></span><br>
Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM<br>Subject: RE: Finch on BIS on Learned Societies<br>To: "<a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>" <<a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@jiscmail.ac.uk">JISC-REPOSITORIES@jiscmail.ac.uk</a>>,<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;margin:0;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>Yes, learned societies - at least those which behave responsibly - have nothing to fear from the BIS Committee Report. The position of learned societies was not examined in any detail by the Finch Group. If it had been, the variety of situations in
learned societies would have been very apparent. Many learned societies have handed over their publishing operations to commercial publishers: is Dame Janet saying that they are entitled to the same policy approach as those who are struggling to maintain their
independence in the face of falling subscriptions? And then there are certain to be big differences between learned societies in respect of the cost of their publishing operation: should they all receive what is in effect a taxpayer subsidy in the form of
RCUK payments for gold OA? And what about the different membership dues: is it fair that those societies which keep their membership dues low and their journal subscriptions high are treated as generously as those which have a fairer balance between the interests
of members and the interests of journal users?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>These are not easy issues to resolve. But that is the whole point: as in other ways the Finch Group adopted a simplistic approach which was not supported by evidence.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fred Friend</p>
<p>Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL </p>
<p></p>
<div style="color:rgb(40,40,40)">
<hr style="width:98%;display:inline-block">
<div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Repositories discussion list <<a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>> on behalf of Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 September 2013 16:36<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Finch on BIS on Learned Societies</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">In response to the BIS Select Committee Report </span><a style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch-report-response-to-select-committe/" target="_blank">Dame
Janet Finch</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> writes:</span>
<blockquote style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<strong>Dame Janet Finch:</strong> <em>"There are some unfortunate gaps in the Select Committee’s consideration. In particular their comments on the publishing industry take no account of a [sic] Learned Societies, whose publishing and other roles have been
a major concern of our working group."</em></blockquote>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The substantive recommendations of the 2013 BIS Report (</span><a style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/9902.htm" target="_blank">I</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">, </span><a style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99vw01.htm" target="_blank">II</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">)
were:</span>
<blockquote style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<strong>1. </strong>that the Green OA deposit <a style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html" target="_blank">in the institutional repository</a> should be <em><a style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html" target="_blank">immediate</a></em> rather
than delayed, whether or not Open Access to the deposit is embargoed by the publisher (during any OA embargo the repository's <a style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" href="https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/notices/publicnotices.php?notice=902" target="_blank">eprint-request
Button</a> can then enable the author to fulfill individual user eprint requests automatically with one click each <em>if deposit was immediate</em>),whether or not Open Access to the deposit is embargoed by the publisher,<br>
<br>
<strong>2.</strong> that an effective <a style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342647/" target="_blank">mechanism for monitoring and ensuring timely mandate compliance</a> should be implemented, and<br>
<br>
<strong>3.</strong> that <a style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" href="http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html" target="_blank">Gold OA publishing</a> should either no longer be preferred or hybrid Gold should no longer be funded.</blockquote>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">It is not at all clear how this amounts to </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"tak[ing]
no account of a [sic] Learned Societies, whose publishing and other roles have been a major concern of our working group."</em><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The Report does recommend shorter limits on the maximum allowable publisher embargo on OA, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the substantive recommendations
above, which refer to the mandatory date of deposit, not to the date on which the deposit is made OA.</span><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><br></div>