From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:11:17 +0100

The new Open Access policy introduced this year by Research Councils
UK — in response to last year’s Finch Report — has been very
controversial, particularly its exhortation to researchers to “prefer”
Gold over Green Open Access

When it was first announced there was an outcry from UK universities
over the cost implications of the new policy. In response, on 7th
September last year the UK Minister for Universities and Science David
Willetts made an additional £10 million available to 30 research
intensive universities to help pay OA transition costs.

But the controversy has continued regardless, and in January this year
the House of Lords Science & Technology Committee launched an inquiry
into the policy. The subsequent report roundly criticised RCUK for the
way it had been implemented, and concluded that lack of clarity about
the policy and the guidance offered was ‘unacceptable’. RCUK responded
by making a number of “clarifications”, and extended the permissible
embargo period before research papers could be made available under
Green OA from 6 and 12 months, to 24 months — an extension that led
many OA advocates to complain that a bad policy had been made worse.

In the meantime, the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills
Select Committee had announced its own inquiry, which at the time of
writing remains ongoing. During this inquiry a number of new issues
have emerged, including complaints that some publishers are exploiting
RCUK’s new policy to pump up their profits (profits that many believe
are already unacceptably high). There are concerns, for instance, that
the £10m in additional funding that Willetts provided is being used
inappropriately. At the centre of these new concerns is Elsevier, the
world’s largest scholarly publisher.

More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-uks-open-access-policy-controversy.html

Richard Poynder