In June 2012, the UK Finch Committee made the following statement:
*The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders nor universities
themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that researchers make
their publications accessible in institutional repositories…* *[Finch
Committee
My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan's. In short, I
see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure - I sat on the
Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.
Specifically:
· Finch recommended gold OA and flexible funding arrangements to cover
negative effects of the
publishing lobby, as most dramatically exerted very recently on the Finch
Report and the resulting RCUK
policyhttp://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342580/1/harnad-cilip.pdf
.
Stevan Harnad
--
*From:* Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
*To:* jisc-repositor
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Kiley, Robert [Wellcome Trust] wrote:
My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan’s. In short,
I see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure – I sat on
the Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.
**· **Finch
.
Are you kidding, Graham? (These arguments sound as strained and far-fetched
as the OJ Simpson defence-team's arguments!)
*GT:* No publisher [in that 60%] has ever introduced an embargo where there
wasn't one before.
Circular: The publishers that have introduced Finch-inspired embargoes
(Alma Swan
Martin Hall: Green or Gold? Open Access After Finch
http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e062u112h295h114/fulltext.html
Fuller hyperlinked version of this posting:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/956-guid.html
The substance of Martin Hall's defence of the Finch recommendation
.
Sandy Thatcher
At 4:01 PM + 11/12/12, Frederick Friend wrote:
I read Martin Hall's defence of the Finch Group Recommendations very
carefully, because one curious feature of this episode in the
development of open access in the UK is the way in which previously
staunch defenders of open
On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 16:15 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote:
[snip]
In backing down on Gold (good), Finch/RCUK, nevertheless failed to
provide any
monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with Green (bad). It only
monitors
how Gold money is spent.
Finch/RCUK also backed down
Below is my comment posted originally on Cameron Neylon's blog
http://cameronneylon.net/blog/first-thoughts-on-the-finch-report-good-steps-but-missed-opportunities/#comment-562279021.
Can be of interest for GOAL.
/On publicity front the Finch Report is a good news, as it restates that
Open
Martin Hall was a member of the committee that published the controversial
Finch Report on OA in the UK.
Some excerpts:
*** On green OA:
[I]t's important to recognize that there are a number of varieties of green
OA . green means different things to different people; for some, it's
, and what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a
post-Finch world?
perhaps this
http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/
might help for a start? If the numbers are correct, it shows a strong
bias in the Finch report's numbers towards the always
*Finch Report II: A Review of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations
of the Finch Report (Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to
Expand Access to Research Publications)*
*Our review is based on a rigorous analysis of evidence from a wide range
of sources*.
Hardly. The Finch II
Let's get this straight.
The Finch Report and the G8 statement are in agreement insofar as the
desirability of open
access (OA) is concerned.
But then all funder and institutional OA policies worldwide today agree on that.
When it comes to how to go about mandating, monitoring and providing
On 2012-07-19, at 10:13 AM, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote:
While I agree with virtually all that Stevan Harnad has to say about Finch
and Willets, I doubt that repositories can be regarded as cost free: in
addition to the costs of providing and maintaining the appropriate database
software (even
-- 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
On 2012-06-20, at 10:22 AM, Sally Morris wrote:
I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both
the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It would seem that the
(relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list take it as an
article
very recently on the Finch
Report and the resulting RCUK policy.
Stevan Harnad
From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Sent: Friday, 26 October 2012, 18:59
Subject: OA Week: Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate
Effectiveness
In June
-- Forwarded message --
From: Frederick Friend ucyl...@ucl.ac.uk
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Subject: A critique of the Finch Report
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
*The Finch Report: a flawed and costly route to open access*
The Finch Report on access to UK
Marcin Wojnarski has just added some comments to the PDF of the Finch Report
(at 'executive summary' in the full version) via Utopia Documents. He asked me:
Why don't you send info to GOAL list about this possibility? I think many
people might be interested, as it's a very convenient way
in the controversial **Finch
Report*http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf
* (published a month earlier), RCUK stressed that it continues to view both
**gold OA* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal* publishing
and **green OA* http
%2Fsafe=activetbm=blg,
in which both green and blue mean green!) they indicate that the percentage
of green publishers is 62%.
The percentage of green journals is likely to be higher as most of the
fleet journal publishers are green...
-- or* were* green until the disastrous Finch/RCUK policy
On 2012-11-12, at 5:39 PM, Sandy Thatcher sandy.thatc...@alumni.princeton.edu
wrote:
If respositories take on the functions of managing peer review and providing
value-added
services like copyediting, then by definition they will become part of the
publishing industry,
just as university
the government’s endorsement of the recommendations of the
Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, chaired by
Dame Janet Finch, the former vice-chancellor of Keele University.The Finch
group said that the UK should move towards making all publicly funded research
freely available
practice and scales efficiency. Our service has been developed
independently of any philosophical arguments for or against gold/green open
access publishing, and after much dialogue with UK university libraries.
No confusion:
A. Yes, I am railing against (i) Finch/RCUK, for its foolish policy
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
route to open access.
The recent Finch group Review of Progress adopts the same position. Our
Report considered such freedom of choice to be fundamental, and it is a
positive development that there is consensus from the Government, the Finch
group and RCUK on this point
times annual
Gold OA.
The only Green vs Gold insight I can discern in this is that universities
and funders should mandate Green OA, now, instead of waiting for Gold OA --
or double-paying for Gold pre-emptively, as the Finch Report proposes doing
(on the basis of the Finch Hypothesis that Green OA
*Re: *Finch access plan unlikely to fly across the
Atlantichttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26storycode=422015c=1
(*Times Higher Education*, 6 December 2012)
It's not just the US and the Social Sciences that will not join the UK's
Gold Rush. Neither will Europe, nor
The Jump THE article was revealing, as was the recent ACSS meeting on
Implementing Finch, judging from the reports from the DisorderofThings blog
(http://thedisorderofthings.com/2012/12/04/open-access-news-and-reflections-from-the-acss-conference/)
and the presentations that are beginning
A Journey to Open Access – Part
4http://tonyhey.net/2013/02/04/a-journey-to-open-access-part-4/
Tony Hey on eScience http://tonyhey.net/
...A major problem with the Finch and RCUK endorsements of gold OA as the
preferred route to open access—and their explicit deprecation of green
OA
:
What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through which
publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the process
cles for HSS scholars to
communicate their research.
What is particularly frustrating for UK-based HSS scholars is that Plan S
looks set to rip up the settlement that was reached in the wake of the 2012
Finch Report
<https://www.acu.ac.uk/research-information-network/finch-report-final>
My thanks to Steve for this very revealing post, which to my mind only
confirms what a shambles the whole process has been since the formation of
the Finch Group through to the swift announcement of the policy and the lack
of attention to implementation. I am inclined to think that the whole
/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Prepare for more press distortions when the Finch Report is released
tomorrow.
We won't be able to counter it if we all run off in all directions. The
essence of what we need to say to debunk
). We
have witnessed the so-called Academic Spring - which included a boycott by
researchers of Elsevier, the world's largest subscription publisher. We have
seen a US petition in favour of OA attract more than 25,000 signatures. And
we have seen the publication of the Finch Report in the UK, followed
- that
the decisions of the Finch committee were pre-determined. Members of
the committee I have spoken to do not confirm Professor Harnad's
statements.
I find this statement fascinating:
There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
publishers would already be three too many
Responses to Martin Hall on Finch on “Neither Green nor
Goldhttp://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall/blog/2013/02/neither-green-nor-gold/
”
1. Stevan Harnad Says:
February 11th, 2013 at 9.03
pmhttp://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall
What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through which
publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the process
copies of the Committee Report and Evidence, and I was immediately reminded
of the thorough, evidence-based investigation by the Committee. The 2004
documents ran to 114 pages for the Report and 479 pages of oral and written
Evidence. Compare that with the measly 140 pages in the Finch Report
Stevan summarises the current situation on UK OA policy very well. It is
surprising after almost six months of criticism of the Finch Report that there
has been so little defence of the Finch/RCUK/BIS position and (to my knowledge)
no response to the criticism voiced. Of all the parties
The Conversation http://theconversation.edu.au/
Finch inquiry’s open access tune won’t resonate in Australia
Authors
1. http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401
Colin Steele http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401
Emeritus Fellow at Australian
John Houghton and Alma Swan have published several important and
influential economic analyses of the costs and benefits of Open Access
(OA), Gold OA publishing and Green OA self-archiving worldwide and for the
UK.
The specific implications of their findings for the UK Finch
Committeehttp
pre-emptively, as the Finch Report
proposes doing (on the basis of the Finch Hypothesis that Green OA mandates
are ineffective -- which is precisely what our new data refute...).
Stevan Harnad
Op 28-10-2012 12:57, Stevan Harnad schreef:
On 2012-10-28, at 6:44 AM, David Wojick dwoj
=0CBoQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.fp=35167f32fa20ab05bpcl=39314241biw=1060bih=768
)
*Why the UK Should Not Heed the Finch
Reporthttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/07/04/why-the-uk-should-not-heed-the-finch-report/
*
*
*
*Testing the Finch Hypothesis http://arxiv.org/abs
as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is
empty and can be completely ignored.
The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is the gratuitous
boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has received from the
breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK policy
...@ecs.soton.ac.uk:
On 2013-11-27, at 12:47 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu
wrote:
What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
The Finch saga has done nothing
keep moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am
intrigued by the assertion that
The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through
which publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the
process leading to true competition whereby there would be a choice
for users
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk
wrote:
Martin Hall was a member of the committee that published the controversial
Finch Report on OA in the UK.
*TRAINS THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT*
Martin Hall's QA reminds me of the (Dostoevsky?) novel in which two
**Cross-Posted**
Here are 12 recent writings on the new Finch/RCUK OA Policy recommendations
in the UK. The latest has just appeared in D-Lib:
Harnad, S (2012) United Kingdom's Open Access Policy Urgently Needs a
Tweakhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html
.* D-Lib Magazine
If there was any residual doubt as to the degree to which the Finch policy
recommendations are dominated by and oriented toward the needs of the
publishing community and not the needs of the research community, here's an
announcement from Sage publications...
SH
-- Forwarded message
With the sponsoring I see for this event, my euphemistic feelings is that there
seems to be strong conflicts of interest for the scholar on the program.
Interesting.
Laurent
Le 16 nov. 2012 à 18:04, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
If there was any residual doubt as to the degree to which the Finch
be full, then teh expected value of all others coming to this
stage would be how long? Many thousands of years. Good things come
to those wait.
But even the 60%-70% mandates are not to be sneezed at,
I am sneezing. I applaud.
This is the UK lead in OA that the Finch Report now proposes
of times in the discussions of the Finch
Reporthttp://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdfand
subsequent policy developments in the UK. We are concerned that there
may be some misinterpretation of this work. This short paper sets out the
main conclusions
://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75285/.
In an open access world, will journal subscription inflation simply be
replaced by APC inflation? The UK's Finch Report (2012) and subsequent
changes to the Research Councils UK's policy on open access (OA) are likely
to have far-reaching effects in the UK and beyond. Finch and RCUK
gold—in contrast to the approach preferred by the Finch Report and by the
Research Councils in the UK. For more commentary on both FASTR and the
White House memorandum see Peter Suber’s
bloghttps://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/8hzviMJeVHJ
...
... Back in the UK, some re-thinking
On 1 December 2013 02:35, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
Because thanks in part to Finch/RCUK's folly and profligacy, many (perhaps
even most) of the subscription journals that UK authors publish in have
lately and happily offered hybrid Gold to UK authors in the hope of cashing
premises of the OA movement - that research funded by the taxpayer should be
freely available to all. To claim as much, he said, was a gross
misunderstanding of the nature of academic research and of scholarly
publication. Yet this was the premise of the UK government-commissioned
Finch Report
journalist, well,
words fail me.
http://m.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Prepare for more press distortions when the Finch Report is released
tomorrow.
We won't be able to counter it if we all run off
Finch II has obviously timed its press release Monday to coincide with a
similar one from the other home-base of Reed-Elsevier, the Netherlands:
Here are some quick Google Translation excerpts from just-released the
Dutch Gold OA Manifesto, clearly timed to coincide with Finch II's
reaffirmation
: the between-journal choice of GOLD versus GREEN journal
and the within-journal choice of the GOLD versus GREEN option -- possibly
because of Gold Fever http://bit.ly/goldfev induced by BIS's Finch
Follyhttp://bit.ly/FinchFolly
.)
*QUESTION 3:* Are Finch/RCUK not bothered by the fact that the new
[Keith Jeffery] (lack of) reciprocity is a fear among some in UK. I detect
that we have lost the Green is better than Gold argument in UK, not least
because the powerful biomedical community stampeded into Gold (but let us see
what the Finch committee comes up with).
We can see the way
a deposit rate of over 80%.
The Liege model -- immediate-deposit (ID/OA) designated the
mechanism for submitting publications for performance review --
is now being adopted more and more, with UK's HEFCE/REF
proposing it also for funder mandates.
Best wishes,
Stevan
Testing the Finch Hypothesis
as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is
empty and can be completely ignored.
The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is the gratuitous
boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has received from the
breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK
by the
assertion that
The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through which
publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the process leading to true
competition whereby there would be a choice for users between two suppliers of
the same research paper.
CC-BY changes the IPR Regime and leads
, this sounds like the Dutch echo of the UK Finch recommendations
to pay fextra for gold OA instead of just mandating green OA. This
recommendation
issues, not coincidentally, from the two countries with the heaviest
concentration
of the journal publishing industry, and hence journal publishing
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, THE DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS,
ELSEVIER wrote:
Hi David,
** **
What I really liked about the Finch Report is that it points a way forward
that can enable different stakeholders to work together constructively to
widen access. Changes would
P.S. Ari Belenkey, why are you posting this on the Finch/Willets
thread? You are not posting about Finch Willets: You are airing
10-year old arguments against OA!
You should be applauding Finch/Willets, since, if heeded, they
will have set OA back by yet another decade...
On 2012-07-31, at 1:02
Finch/RCUK OA Policy
recommendations in the UK. The latest has just appeared in D-Lib:
Harnad, S (2012) United Kingdom's Open Access Policy Urgently Needs a
Tweak http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html .* D-Lib
Magazine* Volume 18, Number 9/10 September/October 2012
http
-- by mandating it -- rather than renounce it in favour of
over-reaching instead for what is not yet within immediate reach at no
extra cost, as the Finch Report had recommended doing.
(2) And I also said that the Finch/RCUK strategy -- of pre-emptively paying
publishers extra (over and above paying
of the Finch
report.
The HoL has issued guidance
http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_7334/hol-guidance-notes-open-access-e
nquiry on how to make written submissions.
In particular, there are four issues highlighted by the committee:
* support for universities in the form of funds to cover article
(Guardian Observer, Telegraph, January 26)
But they are absolutely wrong that the fault lies with Open Access (OA), or
with mandating OA.
The fault lies entirely with the *way* the UK government -- RCUK, under the
influence of the foolish and ill-informed recommendations of the Finch
Committee -- has
Below is the link to the programme and presentations for yesterday's RSP event
on OA Funders' Policies.
There is the predictable tension between the sensible, worldwide movement
toward mandating
Green OA self-archiving, without extra cost, and Finch/RCUK's perverse
preference for
double
://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/30/paying-twice-or-paying-thrice-brienza/
Wouter
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Stevan Harnad
Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2014 14:20
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Dutch Echoes of Finch
and affordability problems resolved?
Some will respond that in the wake of the pushback against the Finch Report,
and the subsequent gold OA policy announced in 2013 by Research Councils UK,
the trend now is in any case to introduce green OA mandates. But these
mandates still sometimes expect researchers
://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tdwt20/current) -- just sent me
the following:
*From:* Miriam Balaban miriambalaban yahoo.com
*Date:* 16 August, 2012 8:10:11 AM EDT
...wish to speak to you urgently about OA – about the ridiculous Finch
report...
We subsequently spoke by phone. The *Desalination* journal
://aoasg.org.au/statements-on-oa-in-australia-the-world/#EuroCommission
* Finch Report (UK) – 16 July
2012http://aoasg.org.au/statements-on-oa-in-australia-the-world/#Finch
* World Bank OA policy – 10 April
2012http://aoasg.org.au/statements-on-oa-in-australia-the-world/#WorldBank
by the
recommendations of the Finch Report, and the consequent decision by Research
Councils UK to favour Gold OA, and endorse Hybrid OA.
Indeed, Kingsley's account suggests that, rather than being a tipping point
for OA, the RCUK Policy has impeded progress, not just in the UK but
globally. The Finch
on the perceived broad
acceptance of Finch I in UK. No reactions yet from Universities Association
(VSNU) or from NWO (the Dutch RCUK). I do worry that House education committee
members will have little grasp of OA debate details.
Volkskrant article:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2672/Wetenschap
have been
bad for a rookie journalist, but for a respected senior journalist, well,
words fail me.
http://m.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Prepare for more press distortions when the Finch Report
/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Prepare for more press distortions when the Finch Report is released
tomorrow.
We won't be able to counter it if we all run off in all directions. The
essence of what we need to say to debunk
publication costs in full (as the Finch Committee and
the RCUK have just recommended, unaccountably, in the UK).
And certainly not to just keep waiting for OA via a change in publisher
business model.
Many/most of our authors
simply don't have the funds to pay OA gold fees. They are clinicians
Both the perverse effects of the UK's Finch/RCUK
policyhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=finch+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl
to distribute
the UK government subsidies to pay for the Gold, to the neglect of the far
more important question of how to monitor and ensure the provision of
cost-free Green.
And with a Finch/RCUK preference for paying Gold over providing cost-free
Green, the UK has given publishers (and other
*Subject:* [GOAL] Alert: Some coordinated action from the Big Publishing
Lobby in the UK Netherlands
Finch II has obviously timed its press release Monday to coincide with a
similar one from the other home-base of Reed-Elsevier, the Netherlands:
Here are some quick Google Translation
** Cross-Posted **
Paul Ayris's points in Why panning for gold may be detrimental to open
access
researchhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/23/finch-report-open-access-research
are all spot on:
The UK Government recommends that the UK should phase out extra-cost
of ID/OA (in which OA
means 'optional access', to make any confusion about OA worse).
Delayed OA (which 'green' with embargoes is) and not being able to
re-use the literature would have been anathema at the original BOAI.
The way I read it, the Finch Report expresses a preference for
immediate
Thursday July 26
2012http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html
*SH*: …If you were a journal publisher… what would you do, when faced with
a policy like [Finch/RCUK]?
*RP:* What do you predict?
*SH:* The answer is obvious: You would offer to “allow” your
of Elsevier's hedging has received from the*
*breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK policy* and its
flow-charts (which Elsevier has eagerly included in its rights
documentation).
For Elsevier has now got a new positive face that it can use for PR:
Elsevier is fully *RCUK
of the folly of the UK Finch
Committeehttp://www.google.ca/#output=searchsclient=psy-abq=harnad+finch+follyoq=harnad+finch+follygs_l=hp.3...2883.5878.0.6372.18.18.0.0.0.0.169.1777.13j5.18.0...0.0...1c.1.17.psy-ab.bMKSMmcpmzopbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.48293060,d.dmgfp=b516a1fd1cf6ebe7biw=1137bih
and technology have made
possible.
If the Finch Report had recommended, as it should have: Full speed ahead
with extending and strengthening Green OA mandates in the UK and wordlwide
-- and then lets plan on the transition from the subscription model for
recovering the costs of publication to the Gold OA
GOLD FEVER AND FINCH FOLLIES
The biggest risk from Gold OA (and it's already a reality) is that it will get
in
the way of the growth of Green OA, and hence the growth of OA itself.
That's Gold Fever: Most people assume that OA means Gold OA, and don't
realize that the fastest, surest and (extra
=73ec5a53ea072cdabiw=1258bih=774from
within the OA movement itself.
The result has been the extremely counter-productive Finch Committee
Report
http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdffollowed
by a new draft of the RCUK OA
policyhttp
repositories, as is already the
case here and there (e.g for UKPMC).
You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most,
perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also
'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns.
The only
Hi Richard,
I argued in the September 2012 issue of my newsletter that the RCUK/Finch
incentives will lead no-fee OA journals to start charging fees, if only to
avoid leaving money on the table. See Section 7 of this article:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-12.htm#uk-ec
Today
Velterop
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:21 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Further Fallout From Finch Folly
...they [start-up subscription journals, or as Stevan calls them bottom-rung
journals] were not subscribed
, for example, perhaps even some of the features highlighted by
Digital Commons. Quality will be the ultimate determinant of usage of these
services.
In a post-Finch OA world it might look like policy is the front line, but you
can be sure the OA providers encouraged by Finch will be putting as much
ary 2013. Respondees are requested not to submit copies of responses to other consultations or to the Finch Report.The Committee will consider a range of topics including:·The Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence:
the White House memorandum and the bi-partisan FASTR bill require green open
access via repositories and say nothing about gold—in contrast to the approach
preferred by the Finch Report and by the Research Councils in the UK. For more
commentary on both FASTR and the White House memorandum see
protests
following the Finch Report, the role of repositories has been given greater
recognition in the policies of RCUK and HEFCE, but this welcome recognition
cannot disguise the fact that within the UK Establishment repositories are now
not to be encouraged. Both gold and green OA
? (Publishers' hybrid Gold Membership
schemes?)
Answer, yet again: Finch Folly, and the RCUK Ruckus about how UK authors
spend their Gold allotments…
But parasitism has become a comfortable way of life, for both publishers
and aggregators, especially when they can deal with librarians as
mediators
1 - 100 of 305 matches
Mail list logo
