1 / 14

The Finch Report and RCUK policies

This report discusses the political context, related developments, and the question of how to expand access to peer-reviewed research publications. It explores the global picture of scholarly communications, the UK research community, and mechanisms for success. The report concludes with recommendations for clear policy direction and better funding arrangements, among other suggestions.

mchavez
Download Presentation

The Finch Report and RCUK policies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Finch Report and RCUK policies Michael Jubb Research Information Network 5th Couperin Open Access Meeting 24 January 2013

  2. 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’

  3. 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

  4. 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’

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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/)

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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?

  13. 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?

  14. Thank youQuestions? Michael Jubb www.researchinfonet.org

More Related