---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Friend, Fred <f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk> Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM Subject: RE: Finch on BIS on Learned Societies To: "jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk" <jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk>,
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? 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. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL ------------------------------ *From:* Repositories discussion list <jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk> on behalf of Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> *Sent:* 12 September 2013 16:36 *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk *Subject:* Finch on BIS on Learned Societies In response to the BIS Select Committee Report Dame Janet Finch<http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch-report-response-to-select-committe/> writes: *Dame Janet Finch:* *"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."* The substantive recommendations of the 2013 BIS Report (I<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/9902.htm> , II<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99vw01.htm>) were: *1. *that the Green OA deposit in the institutional repository<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html> should be *immediate<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html> * rather than delayed, whether or not Open Access to the deposit is embargoed by the publisher (during any OA embargo the repository's eprint-request Button <https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/notices/publicnotices.php?notice=902> can then enable the author to fulfill individual user eprint requests automatically with one click each *if deposit was immediate*),whether or not Open Access to the deposit is embargoed by the publisher, *2.* that an effective mechanism for monitoring and ensuring timely mandate compliance <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342647/> should be implemented, and *3.* that Gold OA publishing<http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html> should either no longer be preferred or hybrid Gold should no longer be funded. It is not at all clear how this amounts to *"tak[ing] no account of a [sic] Learned Societies, whose publishing and other roles have been a major concern of our working group."* 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.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
