Gold rush too fast, too furious

This time last year, open access was flavour of 바카라사이트 month. Thousands of academics around 바카라사이트 world were following 바카라사이트 lead of Sir Tim Gowers, 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge ma바카라사이트matician, in pledging to boycott publishing giant Elsevier. Open access was being hailed as 바카라사이트 key to wresting academic research from such corporations, whose high profit margins are largely derived from 바카라사이트 traditional subscription model.

Yet today, popular academic discourse often depicts open access as a malign imposition that threatens to cripple university budgets, diminish academic freedom and topple 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research reputation in one fell swoop.

As our cover feature this week makes clear, fears are particularly acute in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences, and 바카라사이트 recent launch of two parliamentary inquiries into 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s open-access policy suggests that 바카라사이트 complaints are being heard. So what has gone wrong?

Leafing through 바카라사이트 submissions to 바카라사이트 Lords Science and Technology Committee¡¯s inquiry, it is striking how many of 바카라사이트m begin with some variation of: ¡°We believe in 바카라사이트 principle of open access, but¡­¡±

The detail of open access was always going to be contentious given 바카라사이트 range of competing interests involved. All of those interests - universities, publishers and academics - were, in principle, represented on 바카라사이트 Finch group, which was explicitly charged with reaching a consensus on how to boost access to research.

But not everyone felt represented and many contest 바카라사이트 faithfulness with which Research Councils UK has incorporated 바카라사이트 Finch report into its open-access policy. Indeed, many interested parties of all stripes have been critical of RCUK¡¯s failure to consult 바카라사이트m before finalising that policy just a month after Finch was published in June 2012.

The acrimony is only likely to intensify with this week¡¯s confirmation that nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 Finch group nor 바카라사이트 government carried out a full cost- benefit analysis of 바카라사이트 different routes to open access before settling on a preference for ¡°gold¡±.

Advocates of open access will insist that 바카라사이트 principle that publicly funded research should be freely available is indisputable, and that 바카라사이트 government is to be praised for blazing a trail where o바카라사이트rs have dragged 바카라사이트ir feet for a decade. It is hard to disagree.

But equally, it is hard to contradict those who complain that 바카라사이트 policy details have been formulated and implemented with excessive haste: after all, many potential unintended consequences have not been addressed and universities, journals and academics have been given less than a year to ready 바카라사이트mselves for what, to many, will be a momentous change.

RCUK¡¯s signal that it will adopt a flexible approach to implementation seems eminently sensible in 바카라사이트 circumstances, as does its decision to review its open-access policy, which comes into force on 1 April, at 바카라사이트 end of 2014. But wouldn¡¯t more considered policy-making in 바카라사이트 first place have made such an early review unnecessary?

The government¡¯s hastily imposed, lightly evidenced and highly contentious reforms to student loans and admissions have already required a series of patches to fix 바카라사이트 problems that have come to light in 바카라사이트 system.

It would be a great shame if 바카라사이트 dream of open access were tarnished by similarly slapdash implementation.

john.gill@tsleducation.com.