From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 18:12:07 +0100

I want to pick up on something that Richard has written. I am rather late
but I suspect that many on this list will have been busy with July 4th
celebrations.

I disagree with this statement - "few now doubt that OA is inevitable".
My impression from conversations with librarians, publishers and
scholars is that most now see OA as probably a default model and a
primary model. but part of a mixed economy with purchase by users however
organised continuing as part of the picture of scholarly communication for
the foreseeable future. Librarians are often reluctant to admit to this view
publicly because they fear that they are going against library (for example
ARL) orthodoxy. I have no idea how a mixed economy will work but on the
other hand I have no idea how a total OA environment can work. I am fully
aware that a switch of funds does make it possible but I do not see how the
funding can be distributed.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:49:23 +0100

Making Open Access (OA) a reality has proved considerably more difficult and
time consuming than OA advocates expected when they started out. It is now
19 years since cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad posted his Subversive
Proposal calling on researchers to make their papers freely available on the
Web; and it is nearly 12 years since those who took part in the Budapest
Open Access Initiative (BOAI) coined the term Open Access, and agreed
on a definition.

However, few now doubt that OA is inevitable, and a number of developments
this year have served to confirm that. In February, for instance, the US
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a memorandum on
public access in which it directed federal agencies with more than $100M in
R&D expenditures to develop plans to make the published results of federally
funded research freely available to the public within one year of
publication.

Then last month agreement was finally reached in Europe on the details of
the next EU research programme. Amongst other things, this will require that
papers arising from research the EU funds will have to be made OA.

And two weeks ago G8 science ministers issued a joint endorsement of the
need to increase access to publicly-funded research.

In the meantime, OA mandates continue to be introduced by research funders
around the world, including recently in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland,
and Australia.

In addition, of course, on April 1st Research Councils UK (RCUK) introduced
its highly controversial new OA policy, a policy that sparked a great deal
of bad-tempered wrangling, and led to two inquires and the publication of a
number of clarifications. Yet many continue to have serious doubts about the
policy, and fear its likely consequences. Indeed, opinions on the best way
forward for OA remain generally divided.

So where is OA right now, what still needs to be done, and what should be
the priorities going forward?

With the aim of airing the views of a range of different people on these
matters I hope to publish a series of Q&A interviews in the coming weeks,
starting today with Mike Taylor, palaeontologist, computer programmer and
indefatigable OA advocate.

The interview can be read here:

http://poynder.blogspot.fi/2013/07/open-access-where-are-we-what-still.html

Richard Poynder