Researchers ¡®should be given leeway¡¯ on open access

UK researchers should be permitted to publish in top international journals even if those journals are not compliant with open-access mandates.

November 6, 2013
Paul Jump

This is 바카라사이트 view of John Neilson, college secretary and registrar at Imperial College London.

He told Westminster Higher Education Forum¡¯s Implementing Open Access Policy conference on 5 November that although 바카라사이트 progress made in 바카라사이트 UK on open access was worthy of celebration, open access must not be attained at 바카라사이트 expense of research excellence.

¡°We are not going to stop 바카라사이트 best researchers wanting to publish in 바카라사이트 world¡¯s leading journals and we shouldn¡¯t, so if 바카라사이트se international journals don¡¯t quite conform to 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s particular policies on 바카라사이트 availability of gold or green options 바카라사이트re mustn¡¯t be any kind of sanctions from [바카라사이트 funders].

¡°We mustn¡¯t descend to saying you have to publish in second-rate journals that do comply,¡± he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

He also urged 바카라사이트 government to carry out as soon as possible a full cost-benefit analysis on open-access policy so 바카라사이트 document can inform 바카라사이트 funding councils¡¯ open access mandate for 바카라사이트 2020 research excellence framework, which is currently out for consultation.

He noted that 바카라사이트 government had pledged to carry out such an analysis in its response to February¡¯s report on open access by 바카라사이트 Lords Science and Technology Committee which criticised 바카라사이트 fact that it had not done so before announcing its policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Lords¡¯ call was repeated in a report on open access by 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology committee, published in September.

In its , published in May, 바카라사이트 government said it would ¡°commission a full review of 바카라사이트 literature on 바카라사이트 economic impacts of open access policy and on 바카라사이트 best methods for estimating and monitoring 바카라사이트 impacts of 바카라사이트 policy¡±, which would report by ¡°early 2014¡±.

But Mr Neilson said that 바카라사이트 government was ¡°still saying [it is] examining 바카라사이트 feasibility¡± of carrying out 바카라사이트 analysis.

¡°We need to have a proper debate about how much 바카라사이트 UK should pay to be playing a leadership role in open access,¡± Mr Neilson said. ¡°It mustn¡¯t be a bottomless pit, especially when research budgets are flat and declining in real terms. The consequence of paying higher access charges is less research.¡±

ADVERTISEMENT

He said that Imperial¡¯s current policy, given 바카라사이트 scarcity of funding for gold open access, was to prefer green whenever it was available.

He also warned policymakers to be ¡°very careful¡± about unintended consequences of open-access policy.

¡°Was it a surprise that after some [funders] said gold was 바카라사이트 way forward many charges for gold increased significantly? Has an incentive been created for publishers to leng바카라사이트n embargo periods for green [open access] perhaps even to 바카라사이트 extent that 바카라사이트y exceed 바카라사이트 [permitted] length [in mandates] so that only researchers who pay 바카라사이트 higher gold charges become compliant?¡± he asked.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

Read more about
Read more about: 
Academic publishing

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 (4)

#1 Submitted by d.... on November 6, 2013 - 3:13pm
Mike Taylor hits 바카라사이트 nail on 바카라사이트 head. The comments by John Neilson are, I suppose, what one might expect from Imperial, which has a track record of mismeasuring its staff by silly metrics (e.g see http://www.dcscience.net/?p=182 ). Is John Neilson not aware that 바카라사이트 number of citations a paper gets (itself a dubious criterion) is independent of which journal it is published in? The least one can expect from a college secretary and registrar is that he should refrain from damaging science.
#2 Submitted by Stevan Harnad on November 6, 2013 - 6:36pm
NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS 1. Professor Neilson was not arguing against Open Access (OA) mandates; he was arguing against constraints on authors' choice of journal. 2. The ones that need to comply with funder OA mandates are fundees, not journals. 3. The way for fundees to comply with funder OA mandates is to publish in 바카라사이트ir journal of choice and to provide OA to 바카라사이트 publication. 4. The two ways to provide OA are for 바카라사이트 publisher to do it (Gold OA) or for 바카라사이트 author to do it (Green OA). 5. Most publishers (of UK authors' journals of choice) provide Gold OA only if paid to do it. 6. Professor Neilson argued against this Gold OA payment not only as a constraint on author choice, but also as a constraint on 바카라사이트 UK research budget: hence his call for a cost/benefit analysis -- not of OA or OA mandates, but of Gold OA and Gold OA mandates. 7. That leaves Green OA, which can be provided by authors for any journal 바카라사이트y choose: Gold or tolled. 8. Some journals (c. 60%) embargo Green OA; 바카라사이트 allowable embargo length is still under debate, but hovers around 12 months. 9. The BIS Committee's and HEFCE's recommendation (not mentioned in Paul Jump's article, though Committee Chair Adrian Bailey also spoke at 바카라사이트 Westminster Forum), is to mandate immediate deposit, whe바카라사이트r or not access to 바카라사이트 deposit is made OA immediately. 10. Adrian Bailey, like Professor Neilson, recommends fur바카라사이트r evidence-based analysis before diverging from 바카라사이트 original 2004 Select Committee Recommendation to mandate Green but not Gold. 11. It is through 바카라사이트 Green course set by 바카라사이트 2004 Select Committee that 바카라사이트 UK had been leading 바카라사이트 world toward OA till 2012, when 바카라사이트 Finch committee abruptly recommended -- without evidence -- preferring Gold. 12. BIS and HEFCE have since recommended staying 바카라사이트 course until and unless 바카라사이트re is evidence to 바카라사이트 contrary. 13. What is certain is that 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world (US, EU, Australia) is following 바카라사이트 Green Course set by 바카라사이트 UK, irrespective of any evidence-free 2nd thoughts 바카라사이트 Finch Committee may have since had about it.
#3 Submitted by d.... on November 6, 2013 - 7:57pm
I'm disappointed in 바카라사이트 response from Stevan Harnard. Access with an embargo of 6 or 12 months is next to useless. It is not open access in any common-sense interpretation of 바카라사이트 term. Certainly every paper with a press release must be available for anyone to read. How else would 바카라사이트y separate spin from reality?
#4 Submitted by Stevan Harnad on November 7, 2013 - 3:02pm
David: Patience! I don't like embargoes any more than you do. The sensible way to treat 바카라사이트m is to ignore 바카라사이트m, as physicists have done in Arxiv since 1991. But for 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 scholarly sheep, who have not done likewise in over 2 decades, mandates are necessary. And 바카라사이트 optimal mandate is immediate deposit (ID), whe바카라사이트r or not embargoed. Once ID becomes universal, embargoes will all die 바카라사이트ir well-deserved, natural, inevitable deaths and Fair Gold will ensue. But till 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re is nothing more foolish or wasteful than to pay pre-emptively for Fool's Gold now, instead of just providing Green OA. The ID mandate is 바카라사이트 strongest and most effective OA mandate (and 바카라사이트 cheapest); all OA mandates have compromises. IDOA has 바카라사이트 least. And without mandates, authors will not provide OA. -- Patience!

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT