From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:41:55 +0000

A new Q&A in a series exploring the current state of Open Access has
been published. This one is with Robin Osborne, Professor of Ancient
History at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of the British
Academy.

Earlier this year Osborne published an essay questioning one of the
basic premises of the OA movement — that research funded by the
taxpayer should be freely available to all. To claim as much, he said,
was “a gross misunderstanding” of the nature of academic research and
of scholarly publication. Yet this was the premise of the UK
government-commissioned Finch Report, this was the conclusion of the
UK government when it accepted the Finch Report’s recommendations, and
this was the assumption of Research Councils UK (RCUK) when it
subsequently introduced a new OA policy.

Osborne’s essay met with considerable hostility from OA advocates, who
complained that it was elitist, that it was insular and arrogant, and
that it was dim-witted. Doubtless Osborne could have been more
judicious in his choice of language when challenging the OA movement.
But then so could his critics when responding to him.

Be that as it may, in conducting the Q&A with Osborne it seemed to me
that three key questions arise from his intervention in the OA debate.
First, of course, is whether the arguments he uses are valid. Second,
we might want to ask how representative his views are. Third, we might
wonder how Humanities and Social Science researchers (and their
societies) should respond to the growing demands that they make their
research OA, particularly since OA policies are invariably based on
the habits and practices of scientists.

The Q&A can be read here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/robin-osborne-on-state-of-open-access.html

Richard Poynder