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 nor sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

Muscle from Brussels as open access gets an €80bn boost

'Hell of a difference' as Horizon 2020 set to make accessibility the norm. Elizabeth Gibney reports

The European Union is set to throw the weight of its €80 billion (£64 billion) research funding programme behind open-access publishing, Times Higher Education has learned.

An official at the European Commission, which is drafting proposals for the Horizon 2020 programme, said that for researchers receiving funding from its programme between 2014 and 2020, open-access publishing "will be the norm".

A pilot under way in seven areas of its current funding programme will be extended to become a mandate across all peer-reviewed research in the new scheme, which will cover fields ranging from particle physics to social science.

The organisation is still negotiating with publishers and working up the details of the proposal, but it plans to put forward further ideas at an event in Brussels on 20 June and to publish an official policy before the summer.

Speaking to THE, the director general of research and innovation at the Commission, Robert-Jan Smits, said its commitment to free online access was essential to driving free movement of researchers and ideas within Europe.

"With our €80 billion we can make one hell of a difference," he said. "We're clear about the huge potential that exists on open access."

Tim Gowers, the University of Cambridge professor of mathematics and Fields medallist who in the UK led a boycott of publisher Elsevier over its perceived opposition to open access, said that the biggest effect would be symbolic.

"I think it will be hugely significant, even just if in getting people to make similar decisions," he said. "It begins to feel as though the snowball is getting bigger."

A number of research funders in the UK have increased their focus on open-access publishing this year. Having Europe join the bandwagon is likely to please David Willetts, the universities and science minister, who in a speech at the Publishers Association earlier this month acknowledged that the UK could lose out financially if it were alone in promoting open access.

The UK government's proposals will be finalised after a working group chaired by Dame Janet Finch reports next month.

But with an annual budget almost 20 times that of the Wellcome Trust, the giant biomedical charity - one of the first big funders to have an open-access mandate - Horizon 2020's policy may have a huge effect on others' decisions.

Although the Commission is keeping the exact requirements under wraps, the pilot that will shape the eventual scheme used both "gold" and "green" models of open access.

During the pilot, the Commission underwrote the costs that publishers charged authors to publish their work freely, known as the "gold" model, but only for the duration of the project.

It also explored the "green" model, in which holders of European Research Council grants were required to make their publications available in open-access repositories within six months of publication, while other grant holders had to do so after six to 12 months.

Stephen Curry, professor of structural biology at Imperial College London and a prominent advocate of open access, welcomed the Commission's move.

But he stressed that real commitment would mean the Commission agreeing to pay publishers' fees even after a grant had ended, or contributing to a central pot of funding within researchers' institutions to pay for open-access publishing.

"It looks to me like the Finch committee is thinking along those lines as well," he said.

The Commission also confirmed that it is in discussions with several publishers about the proposals.

Elsevier refused to comment on the Commission's plans, but it has previously said it is opposed to government mandates on open access.

Writing in response to a blog by Professor Gowers suggesting that the company was trying to influence the Commission, Alicia Wise, Elsevier's director of universal access, insisted that it was lobbying Brussels "to ensure that whatever policy is adopted can be implemented successfully".

"Publishers may not like it, but they're going to have to fall in line," Professor Curry said.

"This is part of a bigger and growing picture. If you see the funders falling into line and adopting consistent policies with each other, that sends a clear signal that this is just the way we do research."

elizabeth.gibney@tsleducation.com.

Readers' comments (1)

  • THIS IS ABOUT OPEN ACCESS, NOT JUST ABOUT OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING What is being mandated (required) by the EU is open access (OA) -- i.e. free online access to published, peer-reviewed research journal articles. Hence this is not just about publishing in OA journals (which make their articles free online, usually for a fee). Publishing in an OA journal is called "Gold OA." Publishing in any journal at all, but also self-archiving the final draft in the author's institutional repository, free for all online, is called "Green OA." Gold OA cannot be mandated: Researchers must be allowed to publish in the journal that is most appropriate for their work. And most journals today are still non-OA journals, with publication paid for by institutional subscriptions. Converting to Gold OA publishing is up to publishers. And while most journals (and virtually all of the highest quality journals) are still subscription journals, publication is being paid for in full by subscriptions. Institutions cannot cancel subscriptions while the contents of the journal are not available to their users by any other means. So what is being mandated is Green OA self-archiving by (EU-funded) authors. In addition, some EU research funds are being redirected from research to paying for Gold OA publishing fees, if the author decides to publish in a Gold OA journal. But this will be a drain on already-scarce research funds until non-OA journal subscriptions can be cancelled and those annual savings can be redirected to pay for Gold OA. Meanwhile, however, mandated Green OA will ensure that research findings are accessible to all users online, not just to those whose institutions can afford a subscription to the journal in which it was published. It is that OA that will give the research benefits that are being sought. This may or may not eventually lead to a global conversion to Gold OA. Probably it will, but the important thing to bear in mind is that what research and researchers need, urgently, for the progress of research, now, is OA itself. And this is furnished by mandating Green OA. The conversion of publishing from subscriptions to Gold OA is another matter -- likely, desirable, but not nearly as urgent or immediately reachable as universal Green OA. Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L'Harmattan. 99-106. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/ Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus, 28 (1). pp. 55-59. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18514 Harnad, S. (2011) Open Access to Research: Changing Researcher Behavior Through University and Funder Mandates. JEDEM Journal of Democracy and Open Government 3 (1): 33-41. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22401/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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