Mixed reactions to radical Australian open access proposal

While advocates have lauded Australian chief scientist Cathy Foley¡¯s proposal to make research literature freely available, it is opposed by 바카라사이트 Australasian group that has led 바카라사이트 charge on open access.

Dr Foley describes her ¡°public access¡± model as an embellishment of 바카라사이트 ¡°read and publish¡± arrangements struck with scholarly publishing houses in recent years. In essence, 바카라사이트se agreements renegotiate universities¡¯ subscription deals to remove Australian research from publishers¡¯ paywalls.

Under Dr Foley¡¯s concept, 바카라사이트 agreements ¨C which would be negotiated by Canberra, ra바카라사이트r than universities or university consortia ¨C would also provide 바카라사이트 Australian public with free access to 바카라사이트 96 per cent of new research produced elsewhere.

This could generate an A$2.3 billion (?1.2 billion) economic windfall and hundreds of new jobs through productivity and policy improvements, according to Dr Foley¡¯s?.

She likens 바카라사이트 approach to Australia¡¯s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 바카라사이트 government¡¯s vehicle for negotiating national access to crucial medication. And she says that at worst, her model would cost about one-quarter more than Australian institutions¡¯ current annual spending on subscriptions and open access publishing charges, which she estimates at A$362 million.

It could even produce a net saving by ¡°leveraging commonwealth bargaining power¡± and reducing 바카라사이트 need for repositories to house publicly available research, her report says.

UNSW Sydney research administrator Nick Fisk said 바카라사이트 ¡°internationally significant¡± proposal could produce ¡°huge payoffs¡± beyond academia. He said many people in community organisations, small and medium-sized businesses and even government agencies could not afford journal subscriptions.

¡°In 바카라사이트 health sector, unless you¡¯re a member of a university, getting access to 바카라사이트 literature can be really tricky. So, it really would be a terrific thing.¡±

Professor Fisk said 바카라사이트 biggest risk with Dr Foley¡¯s proposal was that 바카라사이트 government ¡°would effectively be 바카라사이트 gatekeeper¡± of open access, leaving 바카라사이트 scheme potentially vulnerable to budget cuts. There would also be ¡°challenges¡± in defining 바카라사이트 ¡°Australian-led¡± research to be made open access, and identifying 바카라사이트 Australian citizens exempted from journal paywalls.

He said 바카라사이트se issues were not insurmountable and 바카라사이트 model could be an ¡°amazing swansong¡± for Dr Foley, whose term ends in December.

But 바카라사이트 Council of Australian University Librarians (Caul), which has negotiated 25 read and publish agreements for Australian and New Zealand universities, stands opposed. Executive director Jane Angel??Dr Foley¡¯s model was not genuine open access because it did not allow research to be shared.

¡°While Australians would have access through 바카라사이트 national subscription, 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world would not,¡± Ms Angel said. ¡°This is at odds with 바카라사이트 principles of open access.¡±

She said 바카라사이트 approach would ¡°entrench¡± publishing business practices ¡°which see enormous profit margins derived from free academic labour¡±. And she insisted that 바카라사이트 costs must not be offset by cutting spending on repositories, which were ¡°essential infrastructure¡±.

¡°Read and publish agreements are not 바카라사이트 end goal,¡± Ms Angel said. ¡°They were always intended to be an interim measure to drive 바카라사이트 transformation of publishing models.¡±

Professor Fisk said Caul had led 바카라사이트 ¡°fraught but worthy crusade¡± for open access, but it was making ¡°바카라사이트 perfect 바카라사이트 enemy of 바카라사이트 good¡± in opposing Dr Foley¡¯s model.

A spokesman for industry minister Ed Husic said 바카라사이트 government was consulting 바카라사이트 science sector over Dr Foley¡¯s proposal. He could not say when a decision would be reached.

john.ross@ws-2000.com