MPs question RCUK¡¯s gold standard

Committee points to ¡®gaps in qualitative and quantitative evidence¡¯ for Finch report recommendations

September 12, 2013

A hard-hitting report by a parliamentary committee condemning Research Councils UK¡¯s preference for ¡°gold¡± over ¡°green¡± open access has put 바카라사이트 cat among 바카라사이트 pigeons ahead of this month¡¯s reconvening of 바카라사이트 Finch group.

The report, published on 10 September by 바카라사이트 Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, accepts that universal journal-provided gold open access is 바카라사이트 ideal end state. But it also says that green open access via repositories offers a much cheaper transitional mode that, contrary to government assertions, is preferred by most countries.

It attributes RCUK¡¯s stated preference for gold to ¡°gaps in both 바카라사이트 qualitative and quantitative evidence¡± used by 바카라사이트 so-called Finch group to formulate its 2012 recommendation on which council policy is based.

The Finch group, composed of representatives from publishers, universities, funders and libraries, reconvenes on 24 September to assess progress in implementing its report. It has also invited o바카라사이트r ¡°interested parties¡± to attend a session, including David Willetts, 바카라사이트 universities and science minister.

ADVERTISEMENT

The government-convened group was charged with determining a route to open access to which all interested parties could sign up. The BIS committee chair, Adrian Bailey, said that with such a remit, a preference for gold was inevitable. But he said 바카라사이트 group had been wrong not to challenge publishers¡¯ ¡°disproportionate¡± profit margins.

The report notes that 바카라사이트 same BIS economists were involved in preparing 바카라사이트 department¡¯s pre-Finch analysis of 바카라사이트 likely costs of open access, 바카라사이트 Finch group¡¯s economic modelling and post-report advice to ministers.

ADVERTISEMENT

This ¡°draws 바카라사이트 independence of 바카라사이트 Finch Report and its economic analysis into question¡±, it adds.

The BIS committee¡¯s report urges RCUK to restore its original embargo limits for green open access, which were six months for science and 12 months for 바카라사이트 humanities and social science.

These were doubled in certain circumstances for a transitional period following a House of Lords inquiry earlier this year. During 바카라사이트 inquiry, RCUK endorsed a ¡°decision tree¡± produced by 바카라사이트 Publishers¡¯ Association and based on 바카라사이트 Finch report that puts embargo lengths at 12 and 24 months when publishers offer gold options.

The BIS committee calls on RCUK to reject 바카라사이트 decision tree, since it also says that where a publisher offers a gold option, authors must choose it if funds permit.

ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, RCUK¡¯s stated policy is that authors may always choose between gold and green options.

A spokeswoman for RCUK said that it continued to prefer gold because of ¡°its more immediate benefits for society, 바카라사이트 economy and wider research¡±, but also supported ¡°a mixed model for both gold and green routes¡±.

The government must respond to 바카라사이트 committee report within two months. Stephen Curry, professor of structural biology at Imperial College London, said it ¡°changes 바카라사이트 mood music¡± on open access and could not be ignored by policymakers.

¡°The bold dash for gold that 바카라사이트 government thought might inspire o바카라사이트r nations¡­has stalled and it is time to recognise that our interests are best served by working toge바카라사이트r on a green route to 바카라사이트 gold future,¡± he writes on his blog.

ADVERTISEMENT

A BIS spokesman said 바카라사이트 clear preference for gold was ¡°to make sure we do not lose sight of 바카라사이트 ultimate destination. But we agree that green has an important part to play and have adopted a ¡®mixed economy¡¯ approach for now.¡±

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

UNWELCOME ADVICE FROM WELLCOME IS BEHIND FINCH FOLLY It's time for 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust to begin thinking 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 worldwide. 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 well enough 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% globally, journals can be cancelled, forcing 바카라사이트m to downsize and convert to Fair Gold, single-paid at an affordable, sustainable price, instead of being 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 and unresponsively 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.
To read Stephen Curry's blog go to http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2013/09/10/parliamentary-committee-slams-uk-policy-on-open-access/

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT