From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:44:48 +0100

Of course publishers are going to lobby against the green route to
open access: the arguments from publishers are well known and in no
way hidden and whether or not the lobbying is aggressive is a matter
of one's own perceptions surely.

Going back to 2003/2004 I was asked to be the expert adviser to the
committee that we both referred to and had a pleasant conversation
with Ian Gibson, the member of parliament who was the committee chair.
It seemed to me in our conversation that Dr. Gibson had already been
lobbied by Professor Harnad or his disciplines and that his mind was
already made up. I cannot remember now whether or not Dr. Gibson said
that he had met Professor Harnad but it was definitely the impression
I had.

Anyway I refused the opportunity of influence because I did not think
I could be dispassionate. I did propose working with someone closer to
Professor Harnad's views (whom I named) and recommended other people
who were neutral and could do the job. In the end Dr. Gibson plumped
for David Worlock, who was an excellent choice.

I just do not believe on the basis of what others 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 fascinating:

"There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing
open access to publicly funded research".

I am impressed by the suggestion that Professor Harnad actually thinks
that learned societies, organisations that represent the academic
communities, should not be involved in decisions which will have such
an impact on the said academic communities!

Anthony
________________________________
From: LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2012, 23:44
Subject: Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets

From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:36:11 -0400

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 special
influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had.
Does Professor Harnad? [2]

Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the
conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the
UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3]


[1] There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing
open access to publicly funded research.

[2] The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the
ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years
(ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself
in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is
futile and very ill-received by the research community).

The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:
"Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."

The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of
publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:

Finch on Green: "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…
[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories
should [instead]
be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing,
particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and
in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"

Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be
seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public
funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements"
to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open
access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions]
for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and
health sectors…"

But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,
instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates
the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations
of the Finch committee:

"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that
is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be
published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option
[Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional
repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo
period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and…
ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"
http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/

[3]The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Science and Technology were based on
23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one
of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the
outcome, it was evidence and reasons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm

The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this:

“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions
establish institutional repositories on which their published output
can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government
funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all
of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that
the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm

At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under
pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select
Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and
many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.

As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to
Open Access.

If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade
repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.

Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.

Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA
by mandating it.

If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role
in the global transition to universal OA.

Stevan Harnad