<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Scusandomi per il cross posting<br>
Recentemente è uscita la revisione del Finch report del 2012 e le
relative posizioni del governo inglese e dei RCUK's, in risposta
alle critiche mosse dal BIS Committee.<br>
Per chi fosse interessato la mail sottostante fa un breve riepilogo
delle maggiori novità e segnali i link a cui sono accessibili i
documenti.<br>
Buona lettura<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Tessa Piazzini
Responsabile del Servizio di informazione e comunicazione all'utenza
Biblioteca Biomedica <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sba.unifi.it/biomedica">http://www.sba.unifi.it/biomedica</a>
Università degli studi di Firenze
Largo Brambilla 3
50134 Firenze
tel. 055 4271137
fax 055 4221649
e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tessa.piazzini@unifi.it">tessa.piazzini@unifi.it</a>
Blog Bibliomedica In-forma: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.bibliotecabiomedica.wordpress.com">www.bibliotecabiomedica.wordpress.com</a></pre>
<br>
<br>
-------- Messaggio originale --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Oggetto:
</th>
<td>[GOAL] Where now for OA in the UK?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Data: </th>
<td>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:20:58 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Mittente:
</th>
<td>Friend, Fred <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:f.friend@ucl.ac.uk"><f.friend@ucl.ac.uk></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Rispondi-a:
</th>
<td>Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><goal@eprints.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">A: </th>
<td>Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><goal@eprints.org></a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK"><JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK></a>, LibLicense-L
Discussion Forum <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU"><LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=10">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.16736">
<style id="owaParaStyle" style="display: none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-family: Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: #000000; margin: 0">
<p>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.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In summary OA developments in the UK will change as a result
of these three new documents, which can be found at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/implementing-the-recommendations-of-the-finch-report/">http://www.researchinfonet.org/implementing-the-recommendations-of-the-finch-report/</a> and
at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/833/83302.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/833/83302.htm</a> .
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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fred Friend</p>
<p>Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>