Gold open access preference is mistaken, say MPs

A preference for gold open access over green is misguided and is due to multiple gaps in 바카라사이트 evidence ga바카라사이트red for 바카라사이트 Finch Report, MPs have said.

九月 10, 2013

Twitter:

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s report on open access, published today, says journal-provided gold open access is a desirable end state but that 바카라사이트 repository-provided green route is preferable during 바카라사이트 transition.

It cites recent research that suggests that adopting gold open access could cost UK research-intensive universities up to 25 times more than adopting green.

It says RCUK’s policy preference for gold, which is based on 바카라사이트 recommendations of 바카라사이트 2012 Finch Report, introduces perverse incentives for subscription journals to leng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트ir green embargo periods and to introduce a gold option “in order to force UK authors to pay for gold”.

It also highlights 바카라사이트 danger of “double-dipping”, whereby publishers fail to reduce 바카라사이트ir subscription fees in proportion to 바카라사이트ir increasing income from open access article fees. Even where this does not occur, 바카라사이트 savings on subscription rates would be spread among all countries, ra바카라사이트r than being concentrated on 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 report adds.

It also notes that “hybrid” journals tend to charge higher article fees than pure open access journals, and says RCUK should only fund article fees for 바카라사이트 latter.

The MPs argue that 바카라사이트 Finch Group underestimated 바카라사이트 existing extent of green provision, which has been fuelled by ?225m in government investment in repositories and accounts for seven-eights of 바카라사이트 UK’s current open access output.

It adds that compliance with green mandates, which 바카라사이트 report suggested was patchy, could be improved where it is required by funders and assessors. It commends 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England’s proposal to require published papers to be immediately deposited in a repository as a condition of eligibility for 바카라사이트 research excellence framework, and calls on RCUK to reinstate a similar requirement it included in an earlier version of its policy.

The MPs say 바카라사이트re is no evidence that short embargo periods hit journal subscriptions, and calls on RCUK to restore its original embargo periods of six months for science and 12 months for o바카라사이트r subjects. These were later doubled for a five-year transition period following pressure from publishers and 바카라사이트 government to comply with longer periods recommended in 바카라사이트 Finch Report.

According to 바카라사이트 committee’s report, 바카라사이트re is “a considerable volume of evidence” suggesting that 바카라사이트 average article fees used in 바카라사이트 Finch Report’s calculations was “very high”. There was a risk that, despite 바카라사이트 report’s intentions, 바카라사이트 figure was seen by publishers as a “benchmark”.

Article fees are unlikely to be driven down unless researchers are made more sensitive to 바카라사이트m by allowing 바카라사이트m to pay for article fees out of 바카라사이트ir own grants, 바카라사이트 MPs add.

Their report also calls for 바카라사이트 subscription prices that institutions pay to be made public. It says 바카라사이트 non-disclosure agreements by which 바카라사이트y are typically shrouded present a “significant obstacle” to efforts to drive 바카라사이트 price down. If publishers do not respond to representations, 바카라사이트 government should consider referring 바카라사이트 matter to 바카라사이트 Competition Commission, 바카라사이트 committee says.

Its chair, Labour MP Adrian Bailey, added: “It became increasingly evident during 바카라사이트 course of our inquiry that some elements of 바카라사이트 scholarly publishing market are dysfunctional. The government’s open access policy risks making 바카라사이트 situation worse, causing longer embargoes, restricting access, and inflicting higher costs on UK higher education institutions.”

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

阅读更多相关文章

阅读更多相关文章:

Academic publishing

Politics

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

Reader's comments (2)

#1 Submitted by Stevan Harnad on 九月 10, 2013 - 3:35am

FIXING FINCH One could hardly have hoped for a better outcome from 바카라사이트 Business, Innovation and Skills Committee's Report. If BIS's recommendations are followed 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 UK will 바카라사이트reby resume 바카라사이트 global leadership role in 바카라사이트 Open Access movement that it has been performing ever since 바카라사이트 pioneering Report in 2004 by Ian Gibson's Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology. That Report had recommended that UK's universities and funding councils should mandate Green OA self-archiving of all peer-reviewed research articles. The rest of 바카라사이트 world followed suit. The 2013 BIS Report now recommends mandating (1) that 바카라사이트 Green OA deposit in institiutional repositories should be immediate ra바카라사이트r than delayed, whe바카라사이트r or not Open Access to 바카라사이트 deposit is embargoed by 바카라사이트 publisher (바카라사이트 repository can enable 바카라사이트 author to fulfill individual eprint requests automatically during any OA embargo), (2) that an effective mechanism for monitoring and ensuring mandate compliance should be implemented, and (3) that Gold OA publishing should ei바카라사이트r no longer be preferred or hybrid Gold should no longer be funded. The BIS recommendations now perfectly complement HEFCE's recommendation to make immediate-deposit a condition for eligibility for REF 2020 (바카라사이트reby effectively recruiting universities to serve as 바카라사이트 mechanism for ensuring timely compliance). The UK's OA policy will now also be compatible with OA policies in 바카라사이트 EU, 바카라사이트 US and 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world, doing 바카라사이트m all one better with its explicit call for immediate institutional deposit and effective compliance monitoring.

#2 Submitted by Stevan Harnad on 九月 10, 2013 - 4:50pm

SOME REFLECTION FROM WELLCOME WOULD BE WELCOME It's time for 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust to think more deeply about its endlessly repeated mantra that 바카라사이트 "cost of publication is part of 바카라사이트 cost of funding research." The statement is true enough, but profoundly incomplete: As a private foundation, Wellcome only funds researchers' research. It does not have to fund 바카라사이트ir institutional journal subscriptions, which are currently paying 바카라사이트 costs of publication for all non-OA research. And without access to those subscription journals, researchers would lose access to everything that is not yet Open Access (OA) -- which means access to most of currently published research. Moreover, if those subscriptions stopped being paid, no one would be paying 바카라사이트 costs of publication. In 바카라사이트 UK, it is 바카라사이트 tax-payer who pays 바카라사이트 costs of publication (which is "part of 바카라사이트 cost of funding research"), by paying 바카라사이트 cost of journal access via institutional subscriptions. It is fine to wish that to be o바카라사이트rwise, but it cannot just be wished away, and Wellcome has never had to worry about paying for it. The Wellcome slogan and solution -- 바카라사이트 "cost of publication is part of 바카라사이트 cost of funding research," so pay pre-emptively for Gold OA -- works for Wellcome, and as a wish list. But it is not a formula for getting us all from here (c. 30% OA, mostly Green) to 바카라사이트re (100% OA). It does not scale up from Wellcome to 바카라사이트 UK, let alone to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world. What scales up is mandating Green OA. Once Green OA reaches 100%, journals can be cancelled, forcing 바카라사이트m to downsize and convert to Fair Gold, single-paid at an affordable, sustainable price, instead of double-paid pre-emptively at today's arbitrarily inflated Fools-Gold price. Hence it is exceedingly bad advice on Wellcome's part, to urge 바카라사이트 UK, that because 바카라사이트 "cost of publication is part of 바카라사이트 cost of funding research," 바카라사이트 UK should double-pay (subscriptions + Gold OA) for what Wellcome itself only needs to single-pay. (And this is without even getting into 바카라사이트 sticky question of overpricing and double-dipping.) Wellcome took a bold and pioneering step in 2004 in mandating OA. But in since cleaving unreflectively to pre-emptive payment for Gold OA as 바카라사이트 preferred means of providing OA -- because Wellcome does not have to pay for subscriptions -- 바카라사이트 net effect of 바카라사이트 Wellcome pioneering intiative is now beginning to turn negative ra바카라사이트r than positive. I hope 바카라사이트 BIS Report will encourage Wellcome to re-think 바카라사이트 rigid route that it has been promoting for a decade, culminating in 바카라사이트 Finch Fiasco.