From: Stella Dutton <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:24:22 +0100 I've watched the exchange of comments over the Finch report and the recent announcement by the UK government on Open Access, and by the way the BMJ was one of the first journals back in the late 1990s to make its research papers open access. I'd like to correct an error in a number of the postings and if it seems an obvious comment then I apologise but clearly it needs restating. The route to green open access is not cost free. Maybe reviewers are not paid but the whole peer review process has to be managed, with editors and staff paid to run it and that has costs associated with it. By the way, most of our journals reject over 70-80% of the papers received with the BMJ rejecting over 95%. Stella Dutton Chief Executive Officer BMJ Publishing Group Limited BMA House Tavistock Square London WC1H 9JR ________________________________ From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:12:38 +0100 I cannot let pass without challenge the STM Association's statement that "Green Open Access has no business model to support the publications on which it crucially depends". Firstly deposit of a research report by an author in an institutional or subject repository does not depend upon publication in a journal. It is a separate route to the dissemination of publicly-funded research and could operate world-wide whether or not any STM journals were published at all. Secondly green open access does have a business model which is entirely within research and higher education budgets. Repositories are supported by their institution or funding agency, and a fully peer-reviewed version of a research article could be supplied on open access using the time of reviewers currently supplied without charge to publishers. A further quality stamp could be provided by the institution or organization funding the repository and appropriate metadata attached to the version to indicate that it could be regarded as a "version of record". Few people are currently advocating a total switch away from publishing in journals to a total reliance upon repositories (although it would be feasible), but as both the European Commission and Research Councils UK acknowledge in their policies the two models can live alongside one another. The UK Government, in accepting the unbalanced recommendations from the Finch Group, has made a decision which is bad for researchers and bad for taxpayers. It may not even be good for publishers in the long-term, once the full implications of the UK Government's decision are worked through. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: Kim Beadle <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:56:06 +0200 The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) welcomes the UK Government's support for the recommendations in the Finch Access Group Report, as detailed by Minister David Willetts' letter published yesterday (http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research-67d1d.aspx). Although resolution of the VAT issue for electronic products must be referred to the EU level, the UK Science Minister has clearly indicated the Government's backing for the balanced package of measures commended by STM in its comments on the Report (http://www.stmassoc.org/2012_06_18_STM_Press_Release_on_Finch_Report.pdf). We particularly welcome the UK Government's adoption of Finch's conclusions about Green Open Access embargo periods and the recognition that Green Open Access has no business model to support the publications on which it crucially depends. As Willetts writes: "Where APC [Article Processing Charge] funds are not available to the publisher or learned society, for the publication of publicly-funded research, then publishers could reasonably insist on a longer more equitable embargo period. This could be up to 12 months for science, technology and engineering publications and longer for publications in those disciplines which require more time to secure payback." STM shares the same concerns voiced by the UK Publishers Association (http://www.publishers.org.uk/index.php option=com_content&view=article&id=2285:the-pa-welcomes-a-clear-uk-government-policy-on-access-to-research-publications&catid=503:pa-press-releases-and-comments&Itemid=1618) regarding the lack of funding of licence extensions and how the UK Research Councils will implement the Finch package of proposals. Further work will be required to turn these policy recommendations into practical outcomes; STM publishers look forward to working with all parties in the UK to achieve these. ENDS www.stm-assoc.org Contact Kim Beadle for more information - [log in to unmask]