open access: where are we going?
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given to RLUK conference in Newcastle, 15th Nov 2012TRANSCRIPT
Open Access: Where are we going?
Professor Stephen Curry Imperial College
RLUK Conference, Newcastle, 15th Nov 2012
Made available under a CC-‐BY license
occamstypewriter.org/scurry/
Life scienCst and blogger
2
A shock: The Research Works Act (USA)
"No Federal agency may engage in any policy that:(1) causes network disseminaCon of any private-‐sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work"
Sponsors: Reps Carolyn Maloney (D-‐NY) and Darrell Issa (R-‐CA) -‐ and publishers?
3
‣ 'their content'? Excuse me?‣surprise at subscripCon costs (RLUK negoCaCons in 2011)‣re-‐ignited amateur vs commercial tensions
4
Academic Journals were a great idea…
…but the web changes everything
5
Anarchy Policy in the UK -‐ 2012
6
Rt Hon David Wille;s MP:
The "funding model is surely going to have to change even beyond the welcome transiCon to open access and hybrid journals that’s already underway. To try to preserve the old model is the wrong ba;le to fight."
Dame Janet Finch:
“The principle that the results of research that has been publicly funded should be freely accessible in the public domain is a compelling one, and fundamentally unanswerable.”
The relaConship of academics with Open Access
7
Open Access is:‣ an inevitable consequence of the internet‣ a good investment and a fair deal for the taxpayer‣ confusing‣ a challenge for publishers, learned socieCes, funders, academics and librarians
Open Access is not:‣ free (or the same as 'file-‐sharing')‣ the end of peer review‣ synonymous with low quality‣ only for wealthy life scienCsts
OpposiCon of some publishers (and some at SK...)‣ profitable model. Hence:‣ insistence on copyright acquisiCon ‣ Elsevier support for RWA‣ confidenCality clauses on subscripCon deals
9
But others are more forward-‐thinking‣Gold OA can work: PLOS, BMC‣ InnovaCon -‐ eLife, PeerJ, FronCers‣Market in need of a shake-‐up
Why are we not there yet?
Why are we not there yet?
Funder & Govt Policies
‣ Too meek?
‣ WT/RCUK (pre-‐2012): Policy but no enforcement
‣ GoldFinch but not GreenFinch?
‣ New RCUK policy: grateful for clarificaCon
‣ Preference for gold (and CC-‐BY) but green is allowed
‣ RaConale? Green can be version of record.
‣ Funding: Gold targets? Room for manoeuvre?
‣ Does RCUK know what 'full' means?
hip://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/09/28/rcuk-‐open-‐access-‐policy-‐when-‐to-‐go-‐green-‐and-‐when-‐to-‐go-‐gold/
ScienCsts are ill-‐informed and conservaCve
‣too few are aware of:‣their obligaCons ‣how OA works‣subscripCon costs‣access problem (in wealthy insCtuCons)
‣concerns for scienCfic socieCes, humaniCes
‣weak sense of public duty?
‣fear of losing an established model‣invented the web but suspicious of it?‣addicted to impact factors
11
Why are we not there yet?
Impact factors must die!
Aug 2012
Welcome Trust OA policy: "affirms the principle that it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the Ctle of the journal in which an author’s work is published, that should be considered in making funding decisions."
12
?
Print sub/OA online
Online only (no APC)Online only (no APC)
The inexorable rise of Open Access
Published 22-Oct-2012
World: 17% Gold OA
UK: 35% Green OAUK: 5% Gold OA
Residual Challenges for different stakeholders
14
‣ GeHng the message out to academics (help!)‣ Unifying the broad church of OA (herding cats?)‣ APC payment mechanisms that are visible to researchers‣ OA mechanisms that work for all fields‣ Compliance enforcement for green OA?‣ Market innovaKons (from new & est. publishers) ‣ Openness on profits and taxes from publishers ‣ Partnership or business?
‣ DuraCon & cost of transiCon? (When will subs money be released?)‣ InternaKonal cooperaKon on OA policy — how's that going?
Thank you!