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