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 documents (links below) maintain the previous position that the future model for OA in the UK will be APC-paid "gold", there are now subtle but potentially significant differences between the new policy statements.
It is now clear that the UK Government has listened to criticisms of its policy and is no longer willing to support the Finch Group recommendations in the unthinking way it did in July 2012. One example of this modified approach comes in the warm way the Government now writes of the value of OA repositories and their long-term role. Both the recent Finch Group Review and the UK Government Response point to the reality of a "mixed economy" of green and gold OA. While the Finch Group have also been listening to criticism of their side-lining of repositories, their acceptance of a "mixed economy" appears to be limited to the length of the transition period to full APC-paid gold OA. The Government now concedes that "what the final destination looks like is not yet clear" and is likely to be the "mixed economy" of green and gold that the Finch Group see as a transition. On this issue (surprisingly in view of their policies of several years ago) RCUK now come across as the hardest supporters of the APC-paid future, as "RCUK expects to be providing sufficient funding to cover the publication costs of the majority of research papers arising from Research Council funding". >From the Government Response also comes across a greater willingness to listen >to university institutions and to authorities in other countries. In 2012 the >Government rushed out its support for the Finch Report without consulting UK >universities and without any substantial knowledge of the way OA had been >developing in other countries. The new Government statement recognises the >important role of the JISC (a recognition missing from the 2012 documents) and >of HEFCE. The listening over the past year has not changed the Government's >policy fundamentally but it has led to a more consensual approach to the >issues raised by the policy. There is now more of an emphasis on the future >being determined by the publishing decisions of researchers rather than by a >policy laid down from Whitehall. Again the RCUK Response comes across as the >most "dirigiste", pointing to RCUK's "duty" to ensure that high-quality papers >are made available to the public, a duty they see fulfilled through APC-paid >gold OA. All three recent documents perpetuate the myth that high-quality research can only be made available through the existing publishing infrastructure. All three bodies - the Finch Group, the UK Government and the RCUK - have accepted the view of research communication presented to them in the lobbying by publishing vested interests. The Government may be correct in its belief that new OA publishers will force the more long-standing publishers to offer lower APCs and also to be more flexible on embargo periods (a big contentious issue for the future), but as a result of more than a year's discussion of the Finch Report and two Parliamentary enquiries the control over the dissemination of UK publicly-funded research remains firmly in the hands of publishers rather than in the hands of researchers or universities. 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 users between two suppliers of the same research paper. In summary OA developments in the UK will change as a result of these three new documents, which can be found at http://www.researchinfonet.org/implementing-the-recommendations-of-the-finch-report/ and at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/833/83302.htm . The changes are subtle, and some may see them as cosmetic, but they do represent an opportunity for OA supporters in the UK to work within a structure than is a little less rigid than was set out for us in 2012. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
