find millions of pounds in existing budgets to
fund OA charges. That means that some things will have to stop to make the
necessary monies available."
"The Finch recommendations are not good news for the Humanities, whose unit
of publication is characteristically the research monograph. W
My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan's. In short, I
see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure - I sat on the
Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.
Specifically:
· Finch recommended gold OA and flexible funding arrangements to
On 2012-06-25, at 4:24 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
Director of UCL Library Services Paul Ayris on the Finch Report.
Some quotes:
"The Finch Report <http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/>, which
was recently published in the UK, has caused a storm of comment, even
controversy
**Cross-posted*
*
*
*RCUK & EC DID NOT FOLLOW FINCH/WILLETS, *
*THEY REJECTED IT, PROMPTLY AND PROMINENTLY!*
*
*
Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not paying
attention)
as if the the RCUK & EC were following the recommendations of Finch/Willets
when in point
In June 2012, the UK Finch Committee made the following statement:
*"The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders nor universities
themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that researchers make
their publications accessible in institutional repositories…"* *[Finch
Director of UCL Library Services Paul Ayris on the Finch Report.
Some quotes:
"The Finch Report <http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/>, which
was recently published in the UK, has caused a storm of comment, even
controversy. Responses have been lined up behind the ba
based, especially to counter the extensive negative effects of the
publishing lobby, as most dramatically exerted very recently on the Finch
Report and the resulting RCUK
policy<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342580/1/harnad-cilip.pdf>
.
Stevan Harnad
--
> *Fro
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
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Kiley, Robert [Wellcome Trust] wrote:
My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan’s. In short,
> I see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure – I sat on
> the Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.
>
> **·
*Finch Report II: A Review of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations
of the Finch Report ("Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to
Expand Access to Research Publications")*
"*Our review is based on a rigorous analysis of evidence from a wide range
of sources*."
mply with both
> Hefce and Springer CTA requirements.
>
Are you kidding, Graham? (These arguments sound as strained and far-fetched
as the OJ Simpson defence-team's arguments!)
*GT:* No publisher [in that 60%] has ever introduced an embargo where there
> wasn't one before.
>
Martin Hall: "Green or Gold? Open Access After Finch"
http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e062u112h295h114/fulltext.html
Fuller hyperlinked version of this posting:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/956-guid.html
The substance of Martin Hall's defence of the Finch
**Cross-Posted **
The Finch
Report<http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf>,
under strong and palpable influence from the publishing lobby, instead of
recommending extending and optimizing the UK's worldwide lead in providing
Gre
nificant, admittedly.
Sandy Thatcher
At 4:01 PM + 11/12/12, Frederick Friend wrote:
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
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 10:42 +0100, Steve Hitchcock wrote:
> I can't help recall the frankly scathing and patronising treatment of
> the RCUK draft OA policy revealed in the Finch minutes of 27 April.
> Those minutes have been removed, but were reported by Stephen Curry
> and
On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote:
> There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen
> members)... [1]
>
> I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch
> herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any spec
THE FINCH FOLLIES
Adam Tickell wrote: "The EU's policy, as announced today,
is exactly the same as the approach articulated by the UK
government yesterday and there is no contrast between them,
with the exception that BIS will allow longer embargo periods
than the EU where no
between the new RCUK policy <http://goo.gl/AsT0X> and the Finch
recommendations <http://goo.gl/lgD4M>, especially on (1) embargoes, (2)
open licenses, and (3) the role of green OA. I knew that the RCUK disbursed
public funds but was independent of the government. I wanted to learn mor
ial one. When it
> is as high as Elsevier's is claimed to be, that can be significant,
> admittedly.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>
> At 4:01 PM + 11/12/12, Frederick Friend wrote:
>
> I read Martin Hall's defence of the Finch Group Recommendations very
> care
An interview with Graham Taylor, Director of Educational, Academic and
Professional Publishing at the UK-based Publishers Association.
Some extracts below.
* On whether the Finch Committee (made up of funders, learned societies,
libraries, research institutions and publishers) succumbed to
On 2012-07-19, at 10:13 AM, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote:
While I agree with virtually all that Stevan Harnad has to say about Finch
> and Willets, I doubt that repositories can be regarded as "cost free": in
> addition to the costs of providing and maintaining the appropriate dat
Three recent official documents have presented marginally different views of
the future of OA in the UK: the Review of the 2012 Finch Report, the Government
Response to the criticisms from Parliament's BIS Committee, and the RCUK's
Response to the same Committee. Although all three
I can't help recall the frankly scathing and patronising treatment of the RCUK
draft OA policy revealed in the Finch minutes of 27 April. Those minutes have
been removed, but were reported by Stephen Curry and myself. RCUK may have made
some adjustments to the policy as a result, but overa
for developing and implementing the RCUK Open Access policy.
>
> I initially contacted him to talk about what I took to be important
> differences between the new RCUK policy <http://goo.gl/AsT0X> and the
Finch
> recommendations <http://goo.gl/lgD4M>, especially on (1) embargoes, (2)
Let's get this straight.
The Finch Report and the G8 statement are in agreement insofar as the
desirability of open
access (OA) is concerned.
But then all funder and institutional OA policies worldwide today agree on that.
When it comes to how to go about mandating, monitoring and prov
Martin Hall was a member of the committee that published the controversial
Finch Report on OA in the UK.
Some excerpts:
*** On green OA:
"[I]t's important to recognize that there are a number of varieties of green
OA . green means different things to different people; for som
-- Forwarded message --
From: Friend, Fred
Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: Finch on BIS on Learned Societies
To: "jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk" ,
Yes, learned societies - at least those which behave responsibly - have
nothing to fear from the BIS
e recommendations in the controversial **Finch
Report*<http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf>
* (published a month earlier), RCUK stressed that it continues to view both
**gold OA* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal&g
Below is my comment posted originally on Cameron Neylon's blog
<http://cameronneylon.net/blog/first-thoughts-on-the-finch-report-good-steps-but-missed-opportunities/#comment-562279021>.
Can be of interest for GOAL.
/On publicity front the Finch Report is a good news, as it restates
Many thanks to Peter Suber for this further information about Finch, RCUK,
and the close relationship between them.
Peter makes no value judgments in conveying this information, so it is
unclear what he agrees or disagrees with.
I will be much more explicit. I think this is a *terrible* policy
at 5:53 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Many thanks to Peter Suber for this further information about Finch,
> RCUK, and the close relationship between them.
>
> Peter makes no value judgments in conveying this information, so it
> is unclear what he agrees or disagrees with.
>
&g
On 2013-11-27, at 12:47 PM, "Armbruster, Chris" wrote:
> What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
> moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
> assertion that
> "The Finch saga has done nothing to ch
The Electronic Publishing Trust for Development responds to the Finch
Report.
Extract:
"It is difficult not to sound unprofessional and populist when describing
the huge imbalance between the importance of sharing essential research and
that of retaining the profits of the publi
What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
"The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through which
publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the pr
The Conversation <http://theconversation.edu.au/>
Finch inquiry’s open access tune won’t resonate in Australia
Authors
1. <http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401>
Colin Steele <http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/colin-steele-10401>
Emeritus Fe
cannot be blamed too
much for the shambles, which is not of their making, but both the UK Government
(for a hasty decision to go with paid gold OA) and the Finch Group (for making
Recommendations based upon shaky “evidence”) must acknowledge their mistakes.
Particularly revealing is the statement by
** Cross-Posted **
1. The Finch Report is a successful case of lobbying by publishers to
protect the interests of publishing at the expense of the interests of
research itself and the public that funds it:
http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL
OA annually, and mandated Green OA (70%+) is six times annual
Gold OA.
The only Green vs Gold insight I can discern in this is that universities
and funders should mandate Green OA, now, instead of waiting for Gold OA --
or double-paying for Gold pre-emptively, as the Finch Report proposes doi
ence-based, especially to counter the extensive negative effects of the
>> publishing lobby, as most dramatically exerted very recently on the Finch
>> Report and the resulting RCUK policy.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>> From: Stevan Harnad
>> To: jisc-repos
On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 16:15 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote:
[snip]
> In backing down on Gold (good), Finch/RCUK, nevertheless failed to
> provide any
> monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with Green (bad). It only
> monitors
> how Gold money is spent.
>
>
> Finch/
In response to the BIS Select Committee Report Dame Janet
Finch<http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch-report-response-to-select-committe/>
writes:
*Dame Janet Finch:* *"There are some unfortunate gaps in the Select
Committee’s consideration. In particular their comments on the publishi
&lr=&q=romeo+(colour+OR+color)++blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>,
in which both green and blue mean green!) they indicate that the percentage
of green publishers is 62%.
The percentage of green journals is likely to be higher as most of the
Responses to Martin Hall on Finch on “Neither Green nor
Gold<http://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall/blog/2013/02/neither-green-nor-gold/>
”
1. Stevan Harnad Says:
February 11th, 2013 at 9.03
pm<http://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-manageme
government’s endorsement of the recommendations of the
Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, chaired by
Dame Janet Finch, the former vice-chancellor of Keele University.The Finch
group said that the UK should move towards making all publicly funded research
freely available
The Jump THE article was revealing, as was the recent ACSS meeting on
Implementing Finch, judging from the reports from the DisorderofThings blog
(http://thedisorderofthings.com/2012/12/04/open-access-news-and-reflections-from-the-acss-conference/)
and the presentations that are beginning to
number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
"The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through which
publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the process leading to true
competition whereby th
On 2012-06-20, at 10:22 AM, Sally Morris wrote:
> I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both
> the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It would seem that the
> (relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list
My thanks to Steve for this very revealing post, which to my mind only
confirms what a shambles the whole process has been since the formation of
the Finch Group through to the swift announcement of the policy and the lack
of attention to implementation. I am inclined to think that the whole
-- Forwarded message --
From: Frederick Friend
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Subject: A critique of the Finch Report
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
*The Finch Report: a flawed and costly route to open access*
The Finch Report on access to UK research publications
Marcin Wojnarski has just added some comments to the PDF of the Finch Report
(at 'executive summary' in the full version) via Utopia Documents. He asked me:
"Why don't you send info to GOAL list about this possibility? I think many
people might be interested, as it's
Stevan summarises the current situation on UK OA policy very well. It is
surprising after almost six months of criticism of the Finch Report that there
has been so little defence of the Finch/RCUK/BIS position and (to my knowledge)
no response to the criticism voiced. Of all the parties
oupling the two, leading
to a drop in the amount of material requiring/meriting the full peer
review and professional editing service."
This suggests to me a scenario in which universities and research
funders follow the Finch Committee's advice: opt for Gold OA and agree
to pay to p
what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a
post-Finch world?
perhaps this
http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/
might help for a start? If the numbers are correct, it shows a strong
bias in the Finch report's numbers towards the a
annual
> Gold OA.
>
> The only Green vs Gold insight I can discern in this is that
> universities and funders should mandate Green OA, now, instead of waiting
> for Gold OA -- or double-paying for Gold pre-emptively, as the Finch Report
> proposes doing (on the basis of the Finch Hy
les me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
"The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through which
publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the process leading to true
evan Harnad :
>
> On 2013-11-27, at 12:47 PM, "Armbruster, Chris"
> wrote:
>
> What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
> moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
> assertion that
> "The Fin
ers have told me - I
> have no direct knowledge and nor clearly has Professor Harnad - that
> the decisions of the Finch committee were pre-determined. Members of
> the committee I have spoken to do not confirm Professor Harnad's
> statements.
>
> I find this statement fascina
John Houghton and Alma Swan have published several important and
influential economic analyses of the costs and benefits of Open Access
(OA), Gold OA publishing and Green OA self-archiving worldwide and for the
UK.
The specific implications of their findings for the UK Finch
Committee<h
http://m.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html
>
> Charles
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
>
Prepare for more press distortions when the Finch Report is released
tomorrow.
We won't be able to counter it if we all run off in all directions.
K is increasingly confirming that it is sleep-walking ("Implementing
Finch<http://www.acss.org.uk/docs/Open%20Access%20event%20Nov%202012/OAWorkshop.htm>"
Academy of Social Sciences, 29-30 Nov 2012).
All this talk about how to spend the Gold OA money, how much there is of
it, how it is
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am
intrigued by the assertion that
"The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime through
which publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the
process leading to true competition whereby there would be a choice
for use
ch my
copies of the Committee Report and Evidence, and I was immediately reminded
of the thorough, evidence-based investigation by the Committee. The 2004
documents ran to 114 pages for the Report and 479 pages of oral and written
Evidence. Compare that with the measly 140 pages in the Finch R
y or
have to restart the application? I use the older Linux version.
Regards
Marcin
On 06/21/2012 06:44 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
Marcin Wojnarski has just added some comments to the PDF of the Finch
Report (at 'executive summary' in the full version) via Utopia
Documents. He asked me: &q
On 2012-11-12, at 5:39 PM, Sandy Thatcher
wrote:
> If respositories take on the functions of managing peer review and providing
> value-added
> services like copyediting, then by definition they will become part of the
> publishing industry,
> just as university presses are.
Institutional re
where to
publish, and whether they opt for the Gold or Green route to open access.
The recent Finch group Review of Progress adopts the same position. Our
Report considered such freedom of choice to be fundamental, and it is a
positive development that there is consensus from the Government, the
These are comments on Paul Jump's article in today's Times Higher Ed.,
quoting Adam Tickel on the Finch Report, Green OA and Peer Review Costs
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=420326&c=1
THE COST OF PEER REVIEW: PRE-EMPTIVE GOLD VS.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Richard Poynder wrote:
> Martin Hall was a member of the committee that published the controversial
> Finch Report on OA in the UK.
>
*TRAINS THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT*
Martin Hall's Q&A reminds me of the (Dostoevsky?) novel in which two
strange
fall of the infamous Research Works Act (RWA). We
have witnessed the so-called Academic Spring - which included a boycott by
researchers of Elsevier, the world's largest subscription publisher. We have
seen a US petition in favour of OA attract more than 25,000 signatures. And
we have seen
can support this then that is not parasitic, it’s what
> drives best practice and scales efficiency. Our service has been developed
> independently of any philosophical arguments for or against gold/green open
> access publishing, and after much dialogue with UK university libraries.
&g
As a taxpayer I read the 74-page "Review of progress in implementing the
recommendations of the Finch Report" with interest, looking for evidence that
those who recommend policy to HM Government are making their recommendations in
a logical fashion and on the basis of available eviden
*Re: *"Finch access plan unlikely to fly across the
Atlantic<http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=422015&c=1>
"
(*Times Higher Education*, 6 December 2012)
It's not just the US and the Social Sciences that will not join the UK
A Journey to Open Access – Part
4<http://tonyhey.net/2013/02/04/a-journey-to-open-access-part-4/>
Tony Hey on eScience <http://tonyhey.net/>
...A major problem with the Finch and RCUK endorsements of gold OA as the
preferred route to open access—and their explicit deprecation of gree
cles for HSS scholars to
communicate their research.
What is particularly frustrating for UK-based HSS scholars is that Plan S
looks set to rip up the settlement that was reached in the wake of the 2012
Finch Report
<https://www.acu.ac.uk/research-information-network/finch-report-final>
**Cross-Posted**
Here are 12 recent writings on the new Finch/RCUK OA Policy recommendations
in the UK. The latest has just appeared in D-Lib:
Harnad, S (2012) United Kingdom's Open Access Policy Urgently Needs a
Tweak<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html>
.* D-L
If there was any residual doubt as to the degree to which the Finch policy
recommendations are dominated by and oriented toward the needs of the
publishing community and not the needs of the research community, here's an
announcement from Sage publications...
SH
-- Forwarded me
.soton.ac.uk>>:
On 2013-11-27, at 12:47 PM, "Armbruster, Chris"
mailto:chris.armbrus...@eui.eu>> wrote:
What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA veterans and advocates keep
moaning about the UK OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by the
assertion that
"
research grant. Libraries would then keep an eye on how many
papers were being published by which academics, and at what cost.
Hence the line in my Nature article on the Finch report
[http://www.nature.com/news/britain-aims-for-broad-open-access-1.10846]:
"Whatever the solution, academics will b
I use the older Linux version.
>
> Regards
> Marcin
>
>
> On 06/21/2012 06:44 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>>
>> Marcin Wojnarski has just added some comments to the PDF of the Finch Report
>> (at 'executive summary' in the full version) via Utopia D
**Cross-Posted**
Despite the recommendation of the Finch report and UK Science and
Universities Minister David Willets to downgrade repository use to the
storage and preservation of data, theses and unpublished work
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/free-access-british-scientific
policy does, indeed, formally allow immediate, unembargoed
OA, exactly as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is
empty and can be completely ignored.
The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is the gratuitous
boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has re
P.S. Ari Belenkey, why are you posting this on the Finch/Willets
thread? You are not posting about Finch Willets: You are airing
10-year old arguments against OA!
You should be applauding Finch/Willets, since, if heeded, they
will have set OA back by yet another decade...
On 2012-07-31, at 1:02
With the sponsoring I see for this event, my euphemistic feelings is that there
seems to be strong conflicts of interest for the scholar on the program.
Interesting.
Laurent
Le 16 nov. 2012 à 18:04, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>
> If there was any residual doubt as to the degree to which the
Finch II has obviously timed its press release Monday to coincide with a
similar one from the other home-base of Reed-Elsevier, the Netherlands:
Here are some quick Google Translation excerpts from just-released the
Dutch Gold OA Manifesto, clearly timed to coincide with Finch II's
reaffirm
D possibility, or (b) they
were indeed trying to push authors (and publishers!) toward the GOLD option
in both choices: the between-journal choice of GOLD versus GREEN journal
and the within-journal choice of the GOLD versus GREEN option -- possibly
because of Gold Fever <http://bit.ly/goldfev&
Liege-style) and all the other problems (including publication
quality, thanks to OA metrics) will take care of themselves.
Keep fussing instead about ancillary theoretical issues and we
face yet another decade of needless, costly access-denial.
But the Finch Report seems to have brought all the old
forms
n the perceived broad
acceptance of Finch I in UK. No reactions yet from Universities Association
(VSNU) or from NWO (the Dutch RCUK). I do worry that House education committee
members will have little grasp of OA debate details.
Volkskrant article:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2672/Weten
; jisc-repositories
Subject: [GOAL] Alert: Some coordinated action from the Big Publishing Lobby in
the UK & Netherlands
Finch II has obviously timed its press release Monday to coincide with a
similar one from the other home-base of Reed-Elsevier, the Netherlands:
Here are some quick Go
ld be useful
>
Yes, a petition is planned, but we are still hoping that RCUK will announce
that they have fixed the policy, making a petition unnecessary.
Stevan
>
>
> On 15/09/2012 14:29, "Stevan Harnad" wrote:
>
> **Cross-Posted**
>
>
> Here are 1
ter-over-academic-freedom>
> (Guardian Observer, & Telegraph, January 26)
But they are absolutely wrong that the fault lies with Open Access (OA), or
with mandating OA.
The fault lies entirely with the *way* the UK government -- RCUK, under the
influence of the foolish and ill-informed rec
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/30/paying-twice-or-paying-thrice-brienza/
Wouter
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Stevan Harnad
Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2014 14:20
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Dutch Echoes of
ge mandate, the strongest, has a deposit rate of over 80%.
The Liege model -- immediate-deposit (ID/OA) designated the
mechanism for submitting publications for performance review --
is now being adopted more and more, with UK's HEFCE/REF
proposing it also for funder mandates.
Best wish
commendation to mandate Green but not Gold.
11. It is through the Green course set by the 2004 Select
Committee<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm>
that
the UK had been leading the world toward OA till 2012, when the Finch
Committee<http:/
> [Keith Jeffery] (lack of) reciprocity is a fear among some in UK. I detect
> that we have lost the Green is better than Gold argument in UK, not least
> because the powerful biomedical community stampeded into Gold (but let us see
> what the Finch committee comes up with).
We
> [Keith Jeffery] (lack of) reciprocity is a fear among some in UK. I detect
> that we have lost the Green is better than Gold argument in UK, not least
> because the powerful biomedical community stampeded into Gold (but let us see
> what the Finch committee comes up with).
We
://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75285/.
"In an open access world, will journal subscription inflation simply be
replaced by APC inflation? The UK's Finch Report (2012) and subsequent
changes to the Research Councils UK's policy on open access (OA) are likely
to have far-reaching effects in the UK and beyond.
On 1 December 2013 02:35, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Because thanks in part to Finch/RCUK's folly and profligacy, many (perhaps
> even most) of the subscription journals that UK authors publish in have
> lately and happily offered hybrid Gold to UK authors in the hope of cashing
&g
imple, tried, tested, and proven effective,
> and it's been staring us in the face for at least a decade:
> Mandate Green Open Access (effectively: ID/OA,
> Liege-style) and all the other problems (including publication
> quality, thanks to OA metrics) will take care of themselve
ding publication
> quality, thanks to OA metrics) will take care of themselves.
>
> Keep fussing instead about ancillary theoretical issues and we
> face yet another decade of needless, costly access-denial.
>
> But the Finch Report seems to have brought all the old
> forms of
Both the perverse effects of the UK's Finch/RCUK
policy<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#q=finch+blogurl:http://o
se-L Discussion Forum; jisc-repositories
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Alert: Some coordinated action from the Big Publishing
> Lobby in the UK & Netherlands
>
>
>
> Finch II has obviously timed its press release Monday to coincide with a
> similar one from the other home-base of R
1 - 100 of 415 matches
Mail list logo
