***Cross-Posted***
*
*
*These questions are for the *
*Imperial College Science Communication Forum *
***Open access: Going for
Gold?*http://scicommforum-eorg.eventbrite.co.uk/?ebtv=C
*** *
*Thursday, 27 September 2012*
*18:30 to 21:00 (BST) *
*London, United Kingdom*
*QUESTION 1:* For hybrid subscription journals that offer *both* Gold OA
(CC-BY) for a fee and Green OA (6-12) for free, why does RCUK require
authors to pick and pay for Gold? Why not leave the choice to the author?
*RCUK
Policy*http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/1/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf
*:*
*…papers must be published in journals which are [RCUK]-compliant… journal
[is RCUK-]compliant… if…(1)… journal offers [Gold OA, CC-BY].. Or (2) **where
a publisher does not offer option 1**… journal must allow… [Green OA, 6-12]
*
*
*
*QUESTION 2:* If the RCUK official policy really *means* *RCUK authors may
choose Green or Gold* rather than *RCUK authors may choose Green where
Gold is not offered*, then why does it not *say* *RCUK authors may choose
Green or Gold* rather than *RCUK authors may choose Green where Gold is
not offered*? All that's needed to make this perfectly clear is is to drop
the words where a publisher does not offer option 1.
(It is not clear why the clause Where a publisher does not offer
option 1 was
ever inserted in the first place, as the logic of what is intended is
perfectly clear without it, and is only obscured by inserting it. The only
two conceivable reasons I can think of for that gratuitous and misleading
clause's having been inserted in the first place are that either (a) the
drafters half-forgot about the hybrid GREEN+GOLD possibility, or (b) they
were indeed trying to push authors (and publishers!) toward the GOLD option
in both choices: 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 policy
that RCUK authors may choose Green [only] where Gold is not offered (if
that's what it means) would be in direct contradiction with the recommendations
of BOAI-10 to
institutionshttp://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations(see
excerpt at end of this posting)?
*QUESTION 4:* How many UK research fields urgently need
CC-BYhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/909-.htmltoday?
Have Finch/RCUK not confused the re-use needs of research data (Open
Data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data) with the need for free
online access to articles? What percentage of all research fields needs and
wants CC-BY (machine data-mining and re-publication rights) for its
articles today, compared to the percentage that needs and wants free online
access to its articles? What is the relative urgency of these two needs
today (and the price worth paying to fulfill them)?
*QUESTION 5:* What good does it do UK industry to have BIS subsidize Gold
OA for the UK's 6% of worldwide research output (out of the UK's scarce
research funds) when the rest of the world is not doing the same (and
unlikely to afford or want to) for the remaining 94% of worldwide research
output? Does UK industry need Open Access to the UK's own research output
only, in order to create wealth?
*QUESTION 6:* Is RCUK not concerned that a policy requiring UK authors to
choose Gold over Green would simply induce subscription publishers to offer
a pricey hybrid Gold option and to increase their Green embargoes (for all
authors worldwide) so as to ensure that all UK researchers must pay for
Gold? Won't that make it tougher for other others (94%) to provide and
mandate Green OA worldwide?
*QUESTION 7:* Has anyone troubled to do the arithmetic on the UK subsidy
for Gold? The UK publishes 6% of worldwide research output. The UK
presumably also pays 6% of publishers' worldwide subscription revenue. Most
publishers today are subscription publishers. So, in response to the
current policy that RCUK authors may choose Green where Gold is not
offered, would it not make sense for all subscription publishers worldwide
simply to add a hybrid Gold option, so that their total subscription income
can be increased by 6% for hybrid Gold, subsidized by the UK tax-payer and
UK research funds? Has it not been noticed by Finch/RCUK that even if
publishers made good on the promise to lower their subscription fees in
proportion to any increase in their Gold OA revenue from the UK, the UK
would only get back *6% of the 6%* it double-pays for hybrid Gold?
*QUESTION 8:* The Finch
Reporthttp://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf(cited
also by RCUK) claimed that Green OA had failed, and suggested it
should be downgraded to just preservation archiving. But is it not rather *the
prior RCUK Green OA mandate* that failed, because it adopted no compliance
