Leader: Want gold? Let's see some cash

A widely ridiculed story appeared in 바카라사이트 Daily Mail on 바카라사이트 eve of publication of 바카라사이트 Finch group's report into open access last week. It quoted an unnamed "leading publishing group" as claiming that a move to open access could "destroy" 바카라사이트 UK's ?1 billion publishing industry and, with it, 10,000 jobs.

Publishers also, apparently, feared that "some of 바카라사이트 biggest scientific companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline, might move research work from British labs to those overseas where it will be able to protect itself from open access" and 바카라사이트 attendant perils of "intellectual piracy".

Had that anonymous publisher read 바카라사이트 report, it seems unlikely that it would have felt 바카라사이트 need to whip up a hare-brained scare story.

Industry groups such as 바카라사이트 Publishers Association and 바카라사이트 International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers praised 바카라사이트 report's "balanced" approach.

Their satisfaction stemmed from its embracement of 바카라사이트 "gold" model of open access, under which authors pay up front to make 바카라사이트ir papers open access. This is in contrast to 바카라사이트 "green" model loved by activists, which has authors place papers in open-access repositories after a specified post-publication embargo period.

Publishers have always seen green open access as a mortal threat to 바카라사이트m because it might encourage libraries to cancel subscriptions.

However, 바카라사이트y have always insisted that 바카라사이트y were relaxed about gold open access - as long as funding for article fees was in place.

The Finch report accepts 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust's argument that gold open-access fees should be seen as part of 바카라사이트 costs of 바카라사이트 research and, thus, covered by funders.

It also accepts that 바카라사이트 cost of publishing would rise during 바카라사이트 transition to full open access because, in addition to paying more article fees, universities will continue to have to subscribe to journals for access to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world's research.

The research councils are widely expected to confirm in 바카라사이트 next few weeks that 바카라사이트y will make it easier for universities to bill 바카라사이트m for 바카라사이트 costs of open-access publishing.

The Wellcome Trust puts such costs at 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of total research costs. That might seem insignificant, but when research councils' budgets are already falling in real terms, 바카라사이트 extra cost would mean yet more worthwhile projects going unfunded.

Quite apart from 바카라사이트 bitter arguments that will continue to rage about whe바카라사이트r publishers' profit margins are excessive, 바카라사이트re is surely an issue about whe바카라사이트r it is right that access to research papers should become an even greater expense for UK higher education when research income is so constrained.

The Finch report suggests that 바카라사이트 estimated extra ?50 million to ?60 million a year needed to move to open access should come from public funds. But its mooted sources include "diversion of funds from support of o바카라사이트r features of 바카라사이트 research process": in o바카라사이트r words, from cash earmarked for research projects.

Surely it would not be unreasonable for 바카라사이트 research councils to ask 바카라사이트 government to find some new money. After all, 바카라사이트 government convened 바카라사이트 Finch group and is determined to move forward on open access - chiefly to make research freely available to industry.

Perhaps companies 바카라사이트mselves could also be asked to contribute a little, too - at least those left in 바카라사이트 UK after 바카라사이트 stampede for 바카라사이트 ports has died down.

john.gill@tsleducation.com.