The UK Government Response to the BIS Open Access Review
The UK Government's Department of Business Innovation and Skills recently published a review of Open Access research publication. It made a number of really good recommendations, including de-emphasising the "gold" (pay-to-publish) route, and stepping back from the over-extended embargo periods that the publishers seem to have got RCUK to agree to.
The Government has published its response to this review. What is their response? basically, "Nah, no thanks."
- The review said "RCUK should build on its original world leading policy by reinstating and strengthening the immediate deposit mandate in its original policy". The Government said "... timely OA ... through mutually acceptable embargo period". There's nothing "mutual" about the choice of embargo period, given that many academics have been asking for the position that the government has just explicitly rejected.
- The review said "We recommend that the Government and RCUK revise their policies to place an upper limit of 6 month embargoes on STEM subject research and up to 12 month embargoes for HASS subject research, in line with RCUK’s original policy published in July 2012". The Government said "A re-engineering of the research publications market entails a journey not an event" or in other words "No". Note the vacuousness of their statement. It could easily have been "an event", and the committee wasn't even recommending the total removal of embargoes.
- The review said "We recommend that the Government and RCUK reconsider their preference for Gold open access during the five year transition period, and give due regard to the evidence of the vital role that Green open access and repositories have to play as the UK moves towards full open access." The government said "Government and RCUK policy with an expressed preference for Gold OA [sets the direction of travel]". This is fair enough as a sentiment, but unfortunately the government response also included the publisher's favourite "open access flowchart" which clearly tells researchers that gold open access must be chosen if available. Note that this is not a consensus or objective reading of current RCUK rules, let alone the future. The government is showing no signs of backing away from this weird new competitive problem they're creating right now, where researchers in universities have to compete with their own colleagues (studying completely different disciplines) for the tiny and certainly insufficient institutional pay-to-publish funding pots.
- The review in fact agrees with the position I just stated: "RCUK’s current guidance provides that the choice of Green or Gold open access lies with the author and the author’s institution, even if the Gold option is available from the publisher. This is incompatible with the Publishers Association decision tree, and RCUK should therefore withdraw its endorsement of the decision tree as soon as possible, to avoid further confusion within the academic and publishing communities." The government says "As discussed above the UK OA Decision Tree sets out clearly the direction of travel." Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh, are you not even listening?
I could go on. Suffice to say that I was so encouraged by the sane voice of the BIS review; yet the government's response appears to be a solid and completely shameless "not for turning".