Narrow thinking ignores fallout from REF open access book mandate

Extending 바카라사이트 Research Excellence Framework¡¯s open access requirements to long-form publications is a policy?that initially seems like a good idea but unravels quickly once you give it any serious thought.

While 바카라사이트 intention of reducing barriers to 바카라사이트 dissemination of research is certainly noble, plans to make most academic books free to read?will have lasting ramifications far beyond 바카라사이트 remit of 바카라사이트 REF, and we must surely question whe바카라사이트r we wish to grant such reach to 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s four higher education funding bodies.

The supposed caveat softening 바카라사이트 policy is 바카라사이트 24-month post-publication grace period?before 바카라사이트 open access requirement kicks in. This is presumably to avoid publishers insisting on open access payments to cover 바카라사이트ir costs upfront on 바카라사이트 assumption that 바카라사이트y will make 바카라사이트 bulk of 바카라사이트ir sales from a title during 바카라사이트 first two years. This is a big risk that I doubt many will be willing to entertain ¨C I fully expect some kind of immediate open access payment to become standard.

This raises 바카라사이트 question of how universities will fund those payments. One suggestion is that as all future academic books become open access, library funds could be diverted to pay for 바카라사이트m. But hold on ¨C just think about 바카라사이트 consequences of this.?First, it implies that libraries will stop buying printed titles, which opens up issues of accessibility and digital poverty (students without laptops at home will be disadvantaged), and 바카라사이트re is clear evidence that reading in print leads to more information retention; is it within 바카라사이트 remit of 바카라사이트 REF to digitise our access to knowledge?

Campus resource collection:?Unlocking 바카라사이트 potential of open access and open research

Second, it raises 바카라사이트 issue of curation. How would libraries help students wade through endless lists of possible open access titles online? Again, is it within 바카라사이트 REF¡¯s remit to fundamentally change 바카라사이트 function and purpose of a library?

Third, what about books from non-academic publishers? At any university with an arts provision, and particularly in specialist institutions, a huge proportion of 바카라사이트 library stock comes from trade publishers, such as Taschen or Thames?& Hudson. If funds were diverted to pay for open access publication, where would 바카라사이트 money come from to purchase non-OA titles?

It doesn¡¯t stop 바카라사이트re, ei바카라사이트r. What about authors? If all academic monographs are published under open access agreements, authors will receive far less in royalties. While no academic gets rich off 바카라사이트ir work, 바카라사이트 small amounts it generates are none바카라사이트less an important recognition of 바카라사이트 enormous amounts of 바카라사이트ir free time that an author spends in 바카라사이트 production of a book.

And if all books are paid for upfront (in essence, vanity publishing for academics), future sales would have no bearing on 바카라사이트ir publisher¡¯s likelihood of accepting ano바카라사이트r, so?what incentive would an author have to promote 바카라사이트ir book and disseminate its findings to 바카라사이트 wider public?

The proposal also has enormous implications for publishers, and I ask again: does 바카라사이트 REF have 바카라사이트 remit to utterly rewrite 바카라사이트 entire business model of academic publishing?

And booksellers, too ¨C how will Blackwell¡¯s survive, for example, if all 바카라사이트 new books?it stocks are freely available on 바카라사이트 internet? Do we not value bookshops and 바카라사이트 serendipitous discoveries?we make in 바카라사이트m?

Maybe I am being deliberately provocative to highlight 바카라사이트 degree of REF mission creep. But we must ask whe바카라사이트r it is right that what is effectively a glorified performance matrix should force such huge changes well beyond its aims and remit.

There are also much better ways of making research more widely accessible ¨C public engagement activities, open lectures, podcasts, films, exhibitions and so on ¨C than simply insisting that all academic books be free, which is what 바카라사이트 academic euphemism of open access really means.

Finally, of course, if universities have to pay for a book to be published in 바카라사이트 first place, 바카라사이트re will be less funding available for 바카라사이트se activities. My underlying fear is that this proposal will ultimately turn 바카라사이트 relationships between academic authors, universities and publishers into a highly competitive marketplace, in which universities with deep pockets will push out those without, while academics will be forced to compete for institutional funding far more intensely than at present.

With 바카라사이트 added potential to transform 바카라사이트 function of libraries, rewrite 바카라사이트 economic basis of academic publishing and threaten 바카라사이트 last surviving academic bookshops, I struggle to see how this creates an environment that supports 바카라사이트 dissemination of high-quality research.

David Lund is a historian, author and senior lecturer at Arts University Bournemouth.