Open Access: Where are we going? Professor Stephen Curry Imperial College RLUK Conference, Newcastle, 15th Nov 2012 Made available under a CC-‐BY license
Life scienCst and bloggeroccamstypewriter.org/scurry/ 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? ‣ their content? Excuse me? ‣ surprise at subscripCon costs (RLUK negoCaCons in 2011) ‣ re-‐ignited amateur vs commercial tensions 3
Anarchy Policy in the UK -‐ 2012 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.” 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." 6
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 librariansOpen Access is not: ‣ free (or the same as ﬁle-‐sharing) ‣ the end of peer review ‣ synonymous with low quality ‣ only for wealthy life scienCsts
Why are we not there yet? OpposiCon of some publishers (and some at SK...) ‣ proﬁtable model. Hence: ‣ insistence on copyright acquisiCon ‣ Elsevier support for RWA ‣ conﬁdenCality clauses on subscripCon deals But others are more forward-‐thinking ‣ Gold OA can work: PLOS, BMC ‣ InnovaCon -‐ eLife, PeerJ, FronCers ‣ Market in need of a shake-‐up 9
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/
Why are we not there yet?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
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
The inexorable rise of Open Access UK: 35% Green OA UK: 5% Gold OA World: 17% Gold OA Published 2 2-Oct-2012 oA P C) (n eo nly n lin APC) O (no nlin e only O Print sub/ OA online
Residual Challenges for diﬀerent stakeholders‣ 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 — hows that going? Thank you! 14
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.