From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:34 PM


*From:* Australian_oa_community [mailto:australian_oa_communit
[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Colin Steele
*Sent:* Sunday, 10 December 2017 12:18 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* [Australian_oa_community] UK Open Access - Danny Kingsley and UK
Open Access Coordination Group



Danny Kingsley provides a refreshing realpolitik view of the 2012 Finch
Report which took Britain down the Gold Open Access route at arguably, a
very heavy price. Professor Adam Tickell, the Vice Chancellor of Sussex
University, who has written the Foreword for the UK December 2017 OA report
below, was of course on the Finch Committee, which was supported by Dr
Michael Jubb in the Secretariat. The Report was arguably more heavily
influenced by publishers than by academics and certainly not by librarians.

Best

Colin



Citation

Kingsley, D. (2017). *So did it work? Considering the impact of Finch 5
years on* [Presentation file].

Abstract

Looking at different open access policies it becomes clear that the
institutions and funders behind them ‘believe’ that open access will
benefit research and society. With the publication of the Finch Report in
2012, the UK embarked on one of the most expensive open access experiments
in the world with the RCUK Open Access Policy. This was with the goal of
increasing access to UK research and acting as a transition for journals
‘flipping’ to an open access model. So how has it gone? Certainly more UK
research is openly accessible but publishers are no closer to flipping. In
fact, it could be argued that the main outcome of the RCUK policy
transition period is that it has given large publishers time and space to
adapt their practices. Manipulation of embargo periods, confusing
information, and a graduated charging system for different licenses all
work towards ensuring a second income stream. Far from moving to an open
access future we seem to be trapped in a worse situation than we started.
It is time to move away from belief – let’s consider the evidence.



https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/269913



Danny concludes her presentation with the dot points:

·       No other country has joined the push for gold OA

·       We have spent literally millions on hybrid articles

·       Journals have not flipped and are unlikely to (but if Germany
rejects Elsevier maybe there is hope, CS)

·       We now have a considerably more complex system in relation to
embargos (very expensive in terms of manpower)


*******



*Monitoring the transition to open access: December 2017 (52 page report)*
The proportion of UK research which is available via open access is
increasing at a considerable rate, with 37% of research outputs freely
available to the world immediately at publication.

​​This report, the second in a series commissioned by the Universities UK
Open Access Coordination Group, aims to build on previous findings, and to
examine trends over the period since the major funders of research in the
UK established new policies to promote open access.​

The research was delivered by a partnership involving Research Consulting,
the University of Sheffield and Elsevier, and was led by Jubb Consulting​.

Foreword by Professor Adam Tickell, Vice-Chancellor of University of Sussex

The UK research base is one of our nation’s greatest assets. The quality of
our research outputs is world-leading, and our researchers are among the
most productive of any nation. Their expertise is also highly diverse,
multidisciplinary, and increasingly collaborative. Individually and
collectively, we should value the UK’s contribution to the advancement of
knowledge, and be proud of its real-world impact.

To respond to pressing issues such as social harmony, human prosperity, and
the very security of our planet’s ecosystem, it is vitally important that
all research – in any discipline – is of the highest standard, is open to
wide critique, and is accessible to everyone, from anywhere with an
internet connection, for free. It is also what we should expect from public
investment in research.

It is therefore right that we are undergoing a transition towards open
access (OA) in the UK, and as this report shows, we are increasing the
proportion of our research which is available via open access at a
considerable rate. We now make 37% of our outputs freely available to the
world immediately at publication, and this increases to 53% after 24
months.

The UK is well above global averages of open access publishing, and is at
the forefront of a significant global movement which is fundamentally
changing the way that research is conceived, conducted, disseminated and
rewarded. We owe this success to the various stakeholders involved at every
stage of the scholarly communications process, for their dedicated work in
support this important transition.

These stakeholders include (but are not limited to): academics; research
support staff; librarians; technicians and infrastructure providers;
university leaders; the national and research funding councils; charitable
funders of research; the national academies; learned and professional
societies; publishers; and of course, members of the public.

Through a collaborative and constructive approach to aligning efforts, we
have all contributed to advancing open access – and it is clear that such
engagement will continue to be important to ensure that the transition to
open access is maintained, is financially sustainable, and that the
benefits to research and to society are maximised.

To that end, I would like to extend my thanks to Dr Michael Jubb and his
colleagues for the rigorous analysis presented in this report, and to the
members of the Universities UK Open Access Coordination Group and the
organisations they represent, without whom this timely, authoritative – and
openly available – report would not exist.

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/
Documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf



*******


*From the UK Bookseller.*

*Note the APC prices quoted and that expenditure on APC’s is rising faster
than expenditure on subscriptions.*



*And what about double-dipping?*

Thirty-seven per cent of UK-authored research articles were made freely
available to the world immediately on publication last year, via Open
Access, according to a report from Universities UK's Open Access
Co-ordination Group.

Meanwhile a total of 53% of UK-authored research articles in 2016 were
available after 24 months, a research report, titled "Monitoring the
Transition to Open Access", found.

The UK's totals far outweigh the global figures, which show just 24% of
research freely available immediately and 32% after 24 months.

The report found overall spend on Article Processing Charges (APCs) rising,
as well as APC prices, with the mean average APC payment rising from £1,699
in 2013 to £1,969 in 2016, a 16% rise. Expenditure on APCs is rising faster
than expenditure on subscription, the report found. Tracking expenditure
for a group of 10 universities and a sample of seven publishers, the
expenditure on subscriptions rose 20% over the four-year period (from
£13.4m to £16.1m), but expenditure on APCs rose fourfold, though from a
much smaller base (from £689,000 to £2.7m). Total expenditure across
subscription and APCs rose by nearly one third (from £14.1m to £18.8m).



---------------------------------------------

Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow

ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences

The Australian National University

Room 3.31, Beryl Rawson Building #13

Acton, ACT, 2601
Australia



P: + 61 2 6125 8983 <+61%202%206125%208983>

E: [log in to unmask]