The Finch Group has hit back at claims that its preference for gold over green open access was based on flawed evidence.
The coalition-convened group, chaired by Dame Janet Finch, former vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Keele, and containing representatives from publishers, learned societies, universities and funders, was responsible for 바카라사이트 June 2012 report on which 바카라사이트 UK’s open-access policy is based.
The report’s statement that a “clear policy direction” should be set in support of journal-provided gold open access was taken up by Research Councils UK, whose initial open-access mandate, unveiled in July 2012, was widely interpreted as requiring researchers to choose gold wherever possible.
Universities objected that this would be too expensive, given 바카라사이트 article fees charged by journals, and 바카라사이트 Finch Group’s review of progress in implementing its recommendations, published on 18 November, notes that many have adopted an explicit preference for repository-based green open access.
The review makes it clear, in line with more recent RCUK pronouncements, that this is permissible during 바카라사이트 indefinite transition period to full gold open access.
It also endorses a “decision tree” produced by 바카라사이트 Publishers Association that appears to suggest that whenever gold options are offered and funding is available, researchers must opt for it.
But Adam Tickell, Finch Group member and provost and vice-principal at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham, denied 바카라사이트re was “much of a dissonance” in 바카라사이트 report.
“Everyone is happy with [RCUK-] funded gold and 바카라사이트 publishers are happy with green with embargoes that don’t undermine 바카라사이트ir sustainability. As such, 바카라사이트 review codifies 바카라사이트 agreements [regarding RCUK policy] that were reached in 바카라사이트 spring,” he said.
The review also mounts a robust defence of 바카라사이트 original Finch report.
In September, 바카라사이트 Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said that it suffered from “gaps in both 바카라사이트 qualitative and quantitative evidence”. But according to this week’s review, 바카라사이트 Finch Group commissioned its own economic analysis and took into account a “much wider and fuller” range of evidence than critics “have been prepared to acknowledge”.
The group also rejects 바카라사이트 committee’s call for public subsidy of gold article fees to be restricted to fully open-access journals, which tend to charge lower fees than partly open-access “hybrid” journals.
It says that most “high quality” journals are still hybrid, while “learned societies in particular” have welcomed 바카라사이트 opportunity to make a more gradual transition to open access.
It criticises 바카라사이트 committee for “ignoring” 바카라사이트 risk to learned societies posed by open access.
The review laments 바카라사이트 lack of attention paid to its recommendation for extensions of licensed access to journals beyond higher education, and calls for a formal body to be set up by Universities UK to systematically monitor and coordinate efforts on implementing open access.
David Sweeney, director of research, innovation and skills at 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, welcomed 바카라사이트 review’s endorsement of 바카라사이트 importance of author choice, which is also reflected in 바카라사이트 funding councils’ draft open-access mandate for 바카라사이트 research excellence framework.
“The review gives a much rounder description of 바카라사이트 policy than 바카라사이트 previous report and sits well alongside o바카라사이트r international funders’ policies,” he said.
But Stevan Harnad, director of 바카라사이트 University of Southampton’s Cognitive Sciences Centre and a long-time advocate of green open access, dismissed 바카라사이트 “long, rambling, incoherent” review as a “selective rehash of opinions and opinion surveys, with nothing faintly resembling 바카라사이트 objective evidence called for by 바카라사이트 BIS committee”.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
