On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 10:42 +0100, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > 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.
I think moved rather than removed: http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/wg/ If only RIN had a Repository to house the Finch report outputs, they could provide a persistent URL for them ... -- All the best, Tim. > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
