Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share or sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

RCUK and Hefce step up push for open access

Research Councils UK and the Higher Education Funding Council for England have agreed to work together to advance the transition to open-access publishing of research.

The two bodies have pledged to work with other research funders, learned societies and publishers to “support a managed transition to open access over the medium term”.

Astrid Wissenburg, director of partnerships and communications at the Economic and Social Research Council and a member of the RCUK Impact Group, said the move had been instigated by the government’s transparency agenda. In support of that aim, David Willetts, the universities and science minister, chaired a recent round-table discussion on promoting greater open access to research.

Dr Wissenburg said the research councils had for several years had an open-access mandate that required authors to deposit their papers in open-access repositories as soon as was practicable. The councils also consider author charges for “gold” open access to be an allowable indirect cost.

However, she said, compliance with the mandate was “not high” and the processes needed to be simplified for researchers. “It shouldn’t become a huge hurdle, but I am not sure we have cracked that bit of it.”

An impending internal research councils’ review might result in them “pushing the gold route a bit more”, Dr Wissenburg said.

But she was mindful of not trying to race too far ahead just yet, she said, pointing out that not all journals had established an open-access option and that some research communities, such as physics, were already well versed in using repositories while others remained slow to adopt new practices.

“Open access is a wonderful idea, but it needs to be implemented in a way that is sustainable and doesn’t disturb existing research cultures and practices,” she said.

Michael Jubb, director of the Research Information Network, said cooperation between the funding and research councils was essential to supporting any major move towards open access, in particular the gold version – because the demise of the subscription model would transfer the burden of paying for journals from library budgets, which are provided by the funding councils, to individual researchers, who are funded by the research councils.

The research councils had announced in early 2009 that they wanted to provide greater support for gold open access, Dr Jubb said. “But since then, nothing has happened. They just haven’t been prepared to put their money into their proclaimed policy.”

The funding councils, too, had been remiss, he continued. They “haven’t really engaged with the issue”, he said, and had failed to address questions such as whether to impose an open-access mandate after the inaugural research excellence framework in 2014.

Peter Murray-Rust, an open-access advocate and a chemistry researcher at the University of Cambridge, urged funders to enforce their mandates more rigorously.

“The reality is that unless scientists are forced to comply [by a financial penalty or some other sanction], many of them will not,” he said.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

Readers' comments (2)

  • TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE, INTEGRATE FUNDER SELF-ARCHIVING MANDATE FULFILLMENT CONDITIONS WITH UNIVERSITY SELF-ARCHIVING MANDATE FULFILLMENT CONDITIONS There is a sample, natural way to monitor and ensure compliance with funding council mandates to self-archive research journal articles: (1) Mandate deposit of the peer-reviewed final draft immediately upon acceptance for publication. (2) Mandate deposit in the fundee's institutional repository. This will ensure that funder and institutional mandates collaborate and converge, instead of competing and diverging; it will recruit universities and other research institutions (always anxious to meet funder requirements) to monitor compliance with the funder mandates; and it will motivate institutions who have not yet adopted a self-archiving mandate to adopt one. "How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting that the HEFCE review of the JISC contained this paragraph that suggests a confusion within the HEFCE review board of what exactly constitutes the 'open agenda': "JISC’s promotion of the open agenda (open access, open resources, open source and open standards) is more controversial. This area alone is addressed by 24 programmes, 119 projects and five services. A number of institutions are enthusiastic about this, but perceive an anti-publisher bias and note the importance of working in partnership with the successful UK publishing industry. Publishers find the JISC stance problematic." (Section 4:9, http://hefcereview.jiscpress.org/section-4-the-current-operation-of-jisc/) I guess we should be grateful to RCUK for re-educating HEFCE!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
Jobs