<html tabindex="-1" style="-ms-scrollbar-base-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -ms-scrollbar-face-color: rgb(240, 240, 240); -ms-scrollbar-3dlight-color: rgb(227, 227, 227); -ms-scrollbar-shadow-color: rgb(160, 160, 160); -ms-scrollbar-highlight-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); -ms-scrollbar-darkshadow-color: rgb(105, 105, 105); -ms-scrollbar-arrow-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=10">
<style id="owaParaStyle">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.16736">
</head>
<body tabindex="0" style="" dir="ltr" aria-label="Message body" fPStyle="1">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" name="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p>As a taxpayer I read the 74-page "Review of progress in implementing the recommendations of the Finch Report" with interest, looking for evidence that those who recommend policy to HM Government are making their recommendations in a logical fashion and on
the basis of available evidence. What I found in the Review were unsupported statements, made despite - as the authors of the Review admit - the fact that "a key theme of this review has been the lack of solid evidence on key issues" (para 10.59). Assumptions
are made about stakeholders' behaviour - for example that the main reason universities are supporting "green" open access is because they cannot afford paid "gold" - without allowing for the complex factors which determine stakeholders' behaviour.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>An example of the illogical nature of the recommendations in the Review lies in the off-repeated need for a "mixed economy" of open access growth through both repositories and journals. Excellent, I thought, the error of a one-sided approach in the original
report has been recognised - until I read on and discovered that the value of repositories is only acknowledged as a transition to a future in which publishers are paid to make all publicly-funded research available to the public. No evidence is provided for
the assumption that this future will provide a better solution for researchers or for taxpayers than the current "mixed economy". </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lacking evidence, it appears that the push for a paid "gold" future (ignoring any long-term value in unpaid "gold" or repository "green") is derived from a partial view of research communication. Reading the Review you would not think that there is value
in any form of research communication except for articles published in journals. If that is the Finch Group's view of research communication, then it makes perfect sense to see the future as fully paid "gold", but as a taxpayer I ask whether that future meets
my need for cost-effective access to publicly-funded research. The Review also reveals a dogmatic approach in continuing to chase the mirage of national licences to large blocks of journals. Has not that alternative to open access been explored to exhaustion
over many years?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Review ends by proposing a "coordinating structure" representing all stakeholders, with a brief to gather evidence and look for solutions. This proposal has to be welcomed, and in view of earlier work it is good to see JISC mentioned as a contributor
to such a structure. It will be important that any new structure established has a free hand to explore any promising avenues without being restricted by pre-set conditions.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fred Friend</p>
<p>Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Review is available through <a href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch/">
http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch/</a> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</body>
</html>