Presentation given to RLUK conference in Newcastle, 15th Nov 2012

1. Open
Access:
Where
are
we
going?
Professor
Stephen
Curry
Imperial
College
RLUK
Conference,
Newcastle,
15th
Nov
2012
Made
available
under
a
CC-­‐BY
license

2. Life
scienCst
and
blogger
occamstypewriter.org/scurry/
2

3. 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

4. Academic
Journals
were
a
great
idea…
4

5. …but
the
web
changes
everything
5

6. 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

7. The
relaConship
of
academics
with
Open
Access
7

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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/

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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
—
how's
that
going?
Thank you!
14