I can't help recall the frankly scathing and patronising treatment of the RCUK draft OA policy revealed in the Finch minutes of 27 April. Those minutes have been removed, but were reported by Stephen Curry and myself. RCUK may have made some adjustments to the policy as a result, but overall it seems to have reinforced its well established, balanced principles on open access in its new policy.
Steve On 18 May 2012, at 13:55, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > Stephen Curry has updated his reports to cover the 27 April meeting > http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/05/17/finch-committee-update/ > > I have a shorter take below, but note we are homing in on the same issues. > > If the publishers are pressing the case for Article Processing Charges > (APCs), they are succeeding. First RCUK was criticised for its 'premature' > draft OA policy, which has now been amended: > > "It was pointed out that the issuing of the draft has already led to the > clarification of the Research Council position on APCs (as set out above), > which effectively replaces the relevant text in the draft." > > To be clear on what this new position is: > > "The idea behind the policy is that the suggested embargo period would apply > only to journals wishing to pursue the green route; but the gold route was > the preferred option. Publishers argued that this would necessitate a firm > commitment by Research Councils to meet APCs; as such, RCUK’s new stance on > APCs was timely." On 18 Jul 2012, at 06:44, Stevan Harnad wrote: > THE FINCH FOLLIES > > Adam Tickell wrote: "The EU's policy, as announced today, > is exactly the same as the approach articulated by the UK > government yesterday and there is no contrast between them, > with the exception that BIS will allow longer embargo periods > than the EU where no funds are available for APCs" > http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420606 > > Is that so? Professor Tickell, member of the Finch Committee, seems > to be overlooking the elephant in the room! > > Finch/Willets/BIS trashed cost-free Green for costly Gold, to the > delight of the publishing lobby (the plurality that unaccountably > populated the Finch Committee). > > RCUK and the EC both wisely, promptly and prominently refused > to follow suit, and announced that they will continue to mandate > Green OA (while both also reduced the allowable embargo, to the > chagrin of the publishing lobby, and again contrary to the recommendation > of Finch/Willets/BIS). > > The minority of scholars and scientists on the Finch Committee will > have much soul-searching to do, as history shows how they unwittingly > supported the interests of the wrong side... > > Stevan Harnad > > On 2012-06-21, at 5:53 AM, Richard Poynder wrote: > >> What I find striking about Adam Tickell's comments in the THE article is his >> suggestion that funds for publishing will have to be "managed" and that >> "Quite a large number of people publish a huge volume of papers. If they >> were to reduce that, it may not make any significant difference to the >> integrity of the science base." >> >> It reminds me that when I spoke to David Sweeney, HEFCE’s directorof >> research, innovation,and skills, >> (http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/big-deal-not-price-but-cost.html) >> last year he said that it was not obvious to HEFCE "that a constraint on the >> volume of material published through the current scholarly system would be a >> bad thing and that is why, in our research assessment system, we only look >> at up to four outputs per academic." >> >> He added, "The amount of research deserving publication 'for the record' is >> much less than the amount deserving publication 'for immediate debate within >> the community' and whereas print journals have met both needs in the past >> the internet offers the prospect of decoupling the two, leading to a drop in >> the amount of material requiring/meriting the full peer review and >> professional editing service." >> >> This suggests to me a scenario in which universities and research funders >> follow the Finch Committee's advice: opt for Gold OA and agree to pay to >> publish papers, but then severely restrict the number of papers published in >> peer-reviewed journals. Researchers who want to publish more than, say, one >> paper a year might be told to either pay the publication fees themselves, or >> to use services like arXiv (or perhaps their institutional repository, or >> even a blog) for any they wish to publish beyond their ration. >> >> As Sweeney put it, "[T]here is a question about the point of publishing >> material using the full panoply of quality-assured journal publication. Our >> view is that we should look at research quality as an issue of excellence >> rather than an issue of volume of publications. I can't speak for the [UK] >> Research Councils on this but, for us, one publication which is >> ground-breaking and world-leading is worth more than any number of >> publications which would be recognised internationally but not as excellent >> or as world-leading." >> >> And indeed, that is what the title of the THE article implies: "Open access >> may require funds to be rationed." >> >> Richard Poynder >> >> Stevan Harnad writes: >> >> >> These are comments on Paul Jump's article in today's Times Higher Ed., >> quoting Adam Tickel on the Finch Report, Green OA and Peer Review Costs >> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=420326&c=1 >> >> <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=420326&c=1> >> >> THE COST OF PEER REVIEW: PRE-EMPTIVE GOLD VS. POST-GREEN-OA GOLD >> >> Professor Tickell is quite right that peer review has a cost that must be >> paid. But what he seems to have forgotten is that that price is already >> being paid *in full* today, handsomely, by institutional subscriptions, >> worldwide. >> >> The Green Open Access self-archiving mandates in which the UK leads >> worldwide (a lead which the Finch Report, if heeded, would squander) >> require the author's peer-reviewed final draft to be made freely accessible >> online so that the peer-reviewed research findings are accessible not only >> to those users whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in >> which they were published, but to all would-be users. >> >> The Finch Report instead proposes to pay publishers even more money than >> they are already paid today. This is obviously not because the peer review >> is not being paid for already today, but in order to ensure that Green OA >> itself does not make subscriptions unsustainable as the means of covering >> the costs of publication. >> >> To repeat: the Finch Report (at the behest of the publishing lobby) is >> proposing to continue denying access-denied users access to paid-up, >> peer-reviewed research, conducted with public funding, and instead pay >> publishers 50-60 million pounds a year more, gradually, to make that >> research Gold OA. The Finch Report proposes doing this instead of extending >> the Green OA mandates that already make twice as much UK research OA (40%) >> accessible as the worldwide average (20%) at no extra cost, because of the >> UK's worldwide lead in mandating Green OA. >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
