The Finch Report and RCUK policies Michael Jubb Research Information Network 5 th Couperin Open Access Meeting 24 January 2013
Feb 25, 2016
The Finch Report and RCUK policies
Michael JubbResearch Information Network
5th Couperin Open Access Meeting24 January 2013
The Political Context innovation transparency returns on
investment a key principle
‘the results of research that has been publicly funded should be freely accessible in the public domain’
Some related developments Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (‘Hargreaves
Report’) orphan works text mining
Royal Society report on Science as an Open Enterprise intelligent access
Open Data White Paper Research Transparency Sector Board
Justice Committee Post Legislative Scrutiny of FOI Act Administrative Data Task Force
EU Commission Communication: towards better access to scientific information Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific
information Amendments to public sector information directive
The Question and the Process
how to expand access, in a sustainable way, to peer-reviewed research publications
group of 13 representatives of universities, libraries, funders, learned societies, publishers different groups with different interests no perfect solution: ‘best-fit’
The Global Picture 2m. research publications a year
increasing at c.4% a year 25k scholarly journals
most subscription-based 8k open access growth of hybrid journals commercial publishers and learned
societies
Scholarly Communications and the UK Research Community
120k publications in 2010 13% humanities, social science & business 45% life sciences and medicine 42% physical sciences and engineering
strong competitive position more articles and more citations per researcher and per
£ spent more usage per article published citation impact and share of highly-cited papers second
only to US factors underpinning this success
Monographs library expenditure on monographs
declining in real terms, while expenditure on serials is increasing
rising prices and declining print runs no clear open access business model as
yet, but some experiments OAPEN-UK project (http
://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/)
Mechanisms and Success Criteria more UK articles available
globally more global articles
available in the UK sustain high-quality research sustain high-quality services
to authors and readers financial health of publishing
and learned societies costs to HE and funders
open access journals
repositories licence
extensions
Conclusions no single mechanism meets all the success
criteria a mixed economy transition to OA should be accelerated in an
ordered way tensions between interests of key stakeholders,
and risks to all of them costs global environment
promote innovation and sustain what is valuable
Recommendations clear policy direction towards Gold open access better funding arrangements, focusing responsibilities
in universities, not funders minimise restrictions on use and re-use expand and rationalise licensing
HE and NHS SMEs, public libraries
deal with subscriptions and APCs in a single negotiation experiment with OA monographs develop repository infrastructure caution about embargoes
Some responses Govt acceptance of recommendations
£10m one-off funding RCUK policy announcement
requirement for Gold + CC-BY (preferred), or Green with 6month embargo (12 months for humanities and social
sciences) consultation on REF 2020 awaited universities establishing publication funds and policies
BUT no co-ordinated implementation process
Research Councils UK (RCUK) policies requirement from 1 April 2013 for
Gold with a CC-BY licence (preferred), or Green with 6 months maximum embargo (12 months for humanities
and social sciences) block grant to universities to meet costs of article processing
charges (APCs) assumes c45% of articles from Research Council-funded projects will
be published in Gold OA journals in 2013-14, rising to 75% by 2017-18
some discussions continuing on issues including scope of papers covered, embargo periods, and CC-BY licences
management of publication process put firmly in hands of universities
reporting and monitoring arrangements research data?
Conclusion: some implementation issues
development of Green repository infrastructure metadata standards and interoperability
development of Gold infrastructure arrangements for payment of APCs
monitoring and evaluation of progress performance indicators?
university policies and procedures mandates, compliance, performance management…. implications of REF 2020
research data?
Thank you
Questions?
Michael Jubbwww.researchinfonet.org