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 Access is the way to go.
On the more important policy-making front, it's a complete failure and
more of a harm than an aid in establishing universal OA. Being the govt,
I'd throw away this entire report and start again from scratch, but with
_renowned OA expert_ as a leader of the group and no publishers on the
board (let them write a separate report if they wish). My general
feeling is that Dame Janet Finch either didn't withstand the big
pressure of corporate interests; or she completely misunderstood the aim
of the study and her role as a chair. /
/The report contains very few quantitative facts - especially when it
comes to drafting conclusions for the policy - but lots of gobbledygook,
doubletalk and publishers' marketing stuff aimed at obstructing OA. Even
worse, it doesn't deliver on its essential and most important promise:
to give _policy guidelines_ for govt on how to make OA into mainstream.
Instead, it provides a long list of "Key actions" (see Executive
Summary) which are a perfect example of buzzword-compliant non-speak:
"Make a clear commitment", "Put in place arrangements", "Keep under
review", "Renew efforts to sustain and enhance", "Establish effective
and flexible mechanisms", "Provide clear information", "continue to
develop", consider, discuss, extend, ensure, rationalise, examine, find
ways, support, ... and do it "carefully" and "in consultation"! - that's
a brief but complete summary of what Dame Finch recommends to the
government. /
/I think they should withdraw her remuneration, because she simply
didn't do her job. And then make a new study, hopefully more insightful
than this one./
------------
Besides this report being incomplete and sloppy, it also poses a serious
threat to OA policy-making, because up to now it is the most formalized
and authoritative voice of scientific community and thus the government
can't just ignore it. The OA community should make a very clear and
unambiguous statement addressed to the govt saying that this report is
bad, _non-actionable_ in terms of policy making, and doesn't have
acceptance of the community.
BTW, note a funny thing: Dame Finch doesn't provide any clear plan of
what has to be done, but she knows (!) that this will cost £50-60M. How
can it be?!
Marcin Wojnarski
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
