|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]boaiforum messages[BOAI] Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/WilletsFrom: Leslie Carr <lac AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Maintenance of repositories (including, as you imply, the upgrades to the ↵ operating systems and databases and hardware and networks on which they are ↵ built) is cost free as you imply. However, these costs apply universally to ↵ every piece of ICT in a university, and not specifically to repositories. The QA costs do need to be taken into account. But it has to be said that they ↵ could be a LOT less given the right open source software. It is difficult for ↵ us to improve QA in eprints repositories when even the knowledge about the ↵ names of journals is commercially licensed and can't be offered to our users. Sent from my iPhone On 19 Jul 2012, at 15:18, "Prof. T.D. Wilson" <t.d.wilson AT ↵ sheffield.ac.uk<mailto:t.d.wilson AT sheffield.ac.uk>> wrote: While I agree with virtually all that Stevan Harnad has to say about Finch and ↵ Willets, I doubt that repositories can be regarded as "cost free": in ↵ addition to the costs of providing and maintaining the appropriate database ↵ software (even if it is open source, it still needs maintenance), there is the ↵ cost of up to one full-time cataloguer/librarian to monitor quality, etc. In a recent study of the repository of a Swedish university, we found that ↵ quality control was a major issue, with academic staff reporting conference ↵ papers for which no source could be found and, indeed, at times, not even the ↵ conference could be found. So - definitely cheaper, but not cost free. As to the composition of the Finch working party, I imagine it was determined ↵ by the Minister, and who lobbies the Minister...? On 19 July 2012 04:36, Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ↵ ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote: There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen members)... [1] I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any special influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had. Does Professor Harnad? [2] Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3] [1] There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing open access to publicly funded research. [2] The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years (ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is futile and very ill-received by the research community). The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following: "Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA." The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted: Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories… [so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should ↵ [instead] be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing, particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…" Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should ↵ be seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements" to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions] for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and health sectors…" But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it, instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations of the Finch committee: "[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option [Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and… ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…" http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/ [3] The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology were based on 23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the outcome, it was evidence and reasons. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this: “This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions establish institutional repositories on which their published output can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online. It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway. As a result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to Open Access. If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade. Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence, reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate. Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds, instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA by mandating it. If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role in the global transition to universal OA. Stevan Harnad ________________________________ From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com<mailto:amsciforum AT ↵ gmail.com>> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400 Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are pointedly rejecting them! RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA. Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA. Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period, again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!) What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA. The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit. But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA. (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.) Stevan Harnad -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor T.D. Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.) Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research http://informationr.net/ir/ E-mail: wilsontd AT gmail.com<mailto:wilsontd AT gmail.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
|
E-mail: