From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:20:58 +0000


Three recent official documents have presented marginally different
views of the future of OA in the UK: the Review of the 2012 Finch
Report, the Government Response to the criticisms from Parliament's
BIS Committee, and the RCUK's Response to the same Committee. Although
all three documents (links below) maintain the previous position that
the future model for OA in the UK will be APC-paid "gold", there are
now subtle but potentially significant differences between the new
policy statements.

It is now clear that the UK Government has listened to criticisms of
its policy and is no longer willing to support the Finch Group
recommendations in the unthinking way it did in July 2012. One example
of this modified approach comes in the warm way the Government now
writes of the value of OA repositories and their long-term role. Both
the recent Finch Group Review and the UK Government Response point to
the reality of a "mixed economy" of green and gold OA. While the Finch
Group have also been listening to criticism of their side-lining of
repositories, their acceptance of a "mixed economy" appears to be
limited to the length of the transition period to full APC-paid gold
OA. The Government now concedes that "what the final destination looks
like is not yet clear" and is likely to be the "mixed economy" of
green and gold that the Finch Group see as a transition. On this issue
(surprisingly in view of their policies of several years ago) RCUK now
come across as the hardest supporters of the APC-paid future, as "RCUK
expects to be providing sufficient funding to cover the publication
costs of the majority of research papers arising from Research Council
funding".

From the Government Response also comes across a greater willingness
to listen to university institutions and to authorities in other
countries. In 2012 the Government rushed out its support for the Finch
Report without consulting UK universities and without any substantial
knowledge of the way OA had been developing in other countries. The
new Government statement recognises the important role of the JISC (a
recognition missing from the 2012 documents) and of HEFCE. The
listening over the past year has not changed the Government's policy
fundamentally but it has led to a more consensual approach to the
issues raised by the policy. There is now more of an emphasis on the
future being determined by the publishing decisions of researchers
rather than by a policy laid down from Whitehall. Again the RCUK
Response comes across as the most "dirigiste", pointing to RCUK's
"duty" to ensure that high-quality papers are made available to the
public, a duty they see fulfilled through APC-paid gold OA.

All three recent documents perpetuate the myth that high-quality
research can only be made available through the existing publishing
infrastructure. All three bodies - the Finch Group, the UK Government
and the RCUK - have accepted the view of research communication
presented to them in the lobbying by publishing vested interests. The
Government may be correct in its belief that new OA publishers will
force the more long-standing publishers to offer lower APCs and also
to be more flexible on embargo periods (a big contentious issue for
the future), but as a result of more than a year's discussion of the
Finch Report and two Parliamentary enquiries the control over the
dissemination of UK publicly-funded research remains firmly in the
hands of publishers rather than in the hands of researchers or
universities. The Finch saga has done nothing to change the IPR regime
through which publishers control the infrastructure, nor is the
process leading to true competition whereby there would be a choice
for users between two suppliers of the same research paper.

In summary OA developments in the UK will change as a result of these
three new documents, which can be found at:

http://www.researchinfonet.org/implementing-the-recommendations-of-the-finch-report/
and at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/833/83302.htm

The changes are subtle, and some may see them as cosmetic, but they do
represent an opportunity for OA supporters in the UK to work within a
structure than is a little less rigid than was set out for us in 2012.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL