[Oa-italia] Fwd: [GOAL] Where now for OA in the UK?
Tessa Piazzini
tessa.piazzini a unifi.it
Gio 28 Nov 2013 12:22:41 CET
Scusandomi per il cross posting
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.
Per chi fosse interessato la mail sottostante fa un breve riepilogo
delle maggiori novità e segnali i link a cui sono accessibili i documenti.
Buona lettura
Tessa Piazzini
Responsabile del Servizio di informazione e comunicazione all'utenza
Biblioteca Biomedica http://www.sba.unifi.it/biomedica
Università degli studi di Firenze
Largo Brambilla 3
50134 Firenze
tel. 055 4271137
fax 055 4221649
e-mail: tessa.piazzini a unifi.it
Blog Bibliomedica In-forma: www.bibliotecabiomedica.wordpress.com
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Oggetto: [GOAL] Where now for OA in the UK?
Data: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:20:58 +0000
Mittente: Friend, Fred <f.friend a ucl.ac.uk>
Rispondi-a: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
<goal a eprints.org>
A: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal a eprints.org>,
JISC-REPOSITORIES a JISCMAIL.AC.UK <JISC-REPOSITORIES a JISCMAIL.AC.UK>,
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <LIBLICENSE-L a LISTSERV.CRL.EDU>
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
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
URL: <http://liste.cineca.it/pipermail/oa-italia/attachments/20131128/f9d560fb/attachment.html>
-------------- parte successiva --------------
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL a eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista
OA-Italia