Monday, November 12. 2012
Fred Friend on Martin Hall on UK Finch Report on OA
Response of Fred Friend on GOAL to Martin Hall on Finch in UKSG Insights:Fred Friend:
"I read Martin Hall’s defence of the Finch Group Recommendations very carefully, because one curious feature of this episode in the development of open access in the UK is the way in which previously staunch defenders of open access through repositories who were members of the Finch Group have signed up to a Report which only allocates roles in preservation and data storage to repositories, removing the role of access to published research reports…
"Neither Martin Hall nor the Finch Group as a whole have suggested the very feasible solution of funders requiring authors to retain certain rights for public benefit while still giving a publisher the right to publish….
"If the argument for not supporting repository development is weak, the argument for supporting a preference for gold open access is even weaker. (N.B. what follows should not be read as opposing all open access journal publication, merely the perverse policy to make journals the primary route to open access.)
"The argument put forward in the Finch Report is not only that repositories cannot provide a high-quality sustainable service but also that even if they could, a publisher-led approach is desirable. No evidence is put forward to support this key point in the Finch Report. The case for a transition to gold open access is not evidence-based but based upon a perceived threat to the publishing industry from any policy which gives a substantial role to repositories as an alternative source of supply of research articles. The case for “sustainability” presented in the Finch Report is a case for sustainability of the publishing industry…
"In relation to the cost of gold open access the Finch Report rightly mentions the importance of the extent to which other countries adopt the same policy as the UK, but the optimism on this point in the Report is clearly misplaced and represents a huge gamble not only with taxpayer funds but also with the UK researchers’ relationship with their peers in other countries…
"As a result of reading Martin’s article and re-reading the Finch Report I am no further forward in understanding how the open access advocates on the Finch Group could have signed up to the Report, even though they may have been out-voted by the publisher and society members…"
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
At least from an American perspective...I doubt the relationship between U.S. and U.K. researchers will be strained but I would not be surprised by an increased amount of pressure on U.S. legislators to "catch up". This is characterized by a growing frustration with a desire to publish OA but a lack of funds allocated to pay for the practice. A lot of U.S. researchers are requesting those OA fee waivers despite the fact that U.S. budgets are the most likely to be able to pay for them.
I support the idea that the Finch report is not necessarily biased against green OA...In my mind, the primary reason to de-emphasize green OA in preference (though the Finch report may or may not be doing that) for Gold OA is the lack of peer-review infrastructure provided by repositories.
However, the funding structure the U.K. has released recently seems to imply that 75% of volume will be supported in a Gold OA format with the remaining manuscripts being relegated to repositories. This "relegation" may not mean a dead paper...but simply that the paper requires more refining prior to Gold OA publication.
It is a gamble but cultural momentum is on the side of the U.K.
I support the idea that the Finch report is not necessarily biased against green OA...In my mind, the primary reason to de-emphasize green OA in preference (though the Finch report may or may not be doing that) for Gold OA is the lack of peer-review infrastructure provided by repositories.
However, the funding structure the U.K. has released recently seems to imply that 75% of volume will be supported in a Gold OA format with the remaining manuscripts being relegated to repositories. This "relegation" may not mean a dead paper...but simply that the paper requires more refining prior to Gold OA publication.
It is a gamble but cultural momentum is on the side of the U.K.
1. You have profoundly misunderstood what "Green OA" means: It is the self-archiving of already-published, hence already-peer-reviewed articles. There's no reason whatsoever for repositories to do peer review! That's what journals' referees and editors do.
2. The publication (and peer review) is already paid for by subscriptions. So there's no need for any extra funds to provide OA: Just provide Green OA by self-archiving your (published) articles.
3. The UK used to be the world wide leader in OA: It provided the first Green OA repository software, the first Green OA mandates, and the first economic model for Gold OA. But now, under the joint influence of the publishing lobby and Gold fever, the UK has lost its worldwide leadership (unless it fixes the RCUK mandate to make immediate deposit mandatory for all articles, whether subscription or Gold).
2. The publication (and peer review) is already paid for by subscriptions. So there's no need for any extra funds to provide OA: Just provide Green OA by self-archiving your (published) articles.
3. The UK used to be the world wide leader in OA: It provided the first Green OA repository software, the first Green OA mandates, and the first economic model for Gold OA. But now, under the joint influence of the publishing lobby and Gold fever, the UK has lost its worldwide leadership (unless it fixes the RCUK mandate to make immediate deposit mandatory for all articles, whether subscription or Gold).
EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS)
Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA)
Quicksearch
Syndicate This Blog
Materials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
Videos:
audio WOS
Wizards of OA -
audio U Indiana
Scientometrics -
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.
Archives
Calendar
|
May '21 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Categories
Blog Administration
Statistics
Last entry: 2018-09-14 13:27
1129 entries written
238 comments have been made