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.

Open-access policy scrapes the barrel

A disastrous open-access policy lashes the promise of the digital age to an outmoded buggy of a model, laments Martin McQuillan

Jamie Jones THE opinion illustration (7 March 2013)

Source: Jamie Jones

For a government well versed in ad hoc policymaking, the move to open access has been a new low in the management of higher education policy in the UK. Announcing a policy only to declare a five-year moratorium on its full implementation six months later certainly looks, shall we say, improvised.

The Lords Science and Technology Committee report has delivered a withering verdict on Research Councils UK’s handling of the shift, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s consultation on open access, announced last week, will have to take a more measured approach to what is “reasonably achievable” by the 2020 research excellence framework.

At least this is a chance to reflect on some of the problems and to rethink a debate that has so far been distorted into a choice between “gold” pay-to-publish open access and “green” open-access repositories.

One key point that seems to have been forgotten is that the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings chaired by Dame Janet Finch did not take the principle that all taxpayer-funded research should be made available via open access as its jumping-off point. This idea is something of a red herring.

Rather, the Finch group began with the presupposition that openness is fundamental to the advancement of scientific discovery and that the rent- gathering of site licences and subscriptions by publishers in a pay-to- view model mitigates against this. The Finch report’s authors see a mixed economy of open access as the solution to “the increasingly complex relationships between the books, articles and other publications on the one hand, and the data that underlies the findings that those publications present on the other; and how to ensure that they are presented and made accessible in an integrated way” through the speed of communication made possible by the internet.

But the RCUK-government response to Finch has essentially reduced all this complexity to a pay-to-publish model that primarily benefits publishers and commercial users of datasets such as AstraZeneca, which will no longer need to subscribe to journals. The cost of academic publishing has been thrown back on to universities which will in turn inevitably be forced to make economic and strategic decisions about which academic papers they should fund. Expensive and elaborate peer-review mechanisms will have to be established to manage the process. And the costs of all this will not be recouped from university library budgets: on the contrary, libraries will still have to pay for journals from the rest of the world unless other countries implement a gold mandate, and this looks unlikely. As a result, university budgets will be further squeezed and the publishing research base squeezed too. The likely outcome of a unilateral gold open- access policy will be a contraction of research in the UK.

Putting up such ham-fisted barriers to the advancement of scientific and cultural knowledge at a time when growth is stubbornly refusing to return to the UK economy makes no sense whatsoever. With our universities facing article processing charges alongside a real-terms reduction in the science budget, the next Parliament may well see another attempt to raise the cap on tuition fees to pay for all of this. And so the circle of university life in the age of neoliberalism carries on.

The Creative Commons CC-BY licence, under which RCUK-funded articles will be published, no more mitigates the privatisation of public knowledge than the present monopoly of publishers. The licence will allow anyone, including companies, to reuse academic research. At least with present publishing arrangements authors have a say in the dissemination of their work. This is a significant ethical issue that should not be wished away too easily.

We are living in the age of what Tamson Pietsch, lecturer in imperial and colonial history at Brunel University, has termed “epistemological enclosure”, in which the value of the public good is systematically being transferred to the benefit of private individuals. Skewed in favour of multinational publishers and private research laboratories, unilateral gold open access is the knowledge economy equivalent of saying: “We will build a high-speed rail network across the country but only use the existing horse and cart owners to provide services”; it simply reproduces the model of commercial print journals in another medium.

A true investment in openness as a defining principle of the advancement of knowledge requires us to think in a completely different way about a new Enlightenment, illuminated by the possibilities of digital technology, rather than reinscribing the rights of vested interests. It will require our best minds to give it their deepest consideration.

At the centre of this future information age must sit the right to publish work of the highest quality, freely and without managerial or institutional oversight, independent of commercial pressures. This is what connects the new openness to the age of Enlightenment, progress and the advancement of knowledge - and this is what is put at risk by the rush to an ill-considered, badly implemented policy that appears to have been thought up by a minister of state in his bath.

Rate this article  (4.43 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (3)

  • John Holmwood

    Yes. Spot on. And the news item elsewhere on the RCUK consultation misses the fact that it will close within 2 weeks, despite severe criticisms by the House of Lords Select Committee, and that it is pressing strongly for a one size fits all policy and the adoption of a 6 month green embargo period. Any 'transition period' is going to be undermined by the rush to compliance by universities. Phase two will be MOOCS and their development under a for-profit model - free-online courses, but subcontracted tutorial support and certification that protects high status universities and undermines colleagues elswehere.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Gabriel Egan

    McQuillan expresses what is becoming a common fear of leaving out the 'non-commercial' (NC) rule from a Creative Commons licence. The fear is misplaced as in fact Disney, TimeWarner, and Pearsons have no interest in taking open access scholarship, repackaging it and selling it for a profit. How could they, since the stuff is already available for free? All that an NC limitation prevents is reuse and promotion of one's work by small, independent websites that happen to cover their costs by running adverts. That is, the NC rule prevents scholarship being recirculated by the very people McQuillan probably wants to encourage. Everyone currently using a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) licence should immediately switch to an Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) licence, if they want their work to be more widely circulated and discussed. McQuillan is right that current publishing arrangements give authors a "say in the dissemination of their work". The poor choices made by academic authors in this regard--typically treating their outputs as personal property rather than as things the public has paid them to produce--are largely to blame for the very low public readership of scholarly writing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Stevan Harnad

    THE ESSENTIALS OF OPEN ACCESS

    It is rather difficult to extract a coherent position or proposal from Professor McQuillan's rather impressionistic account of open-access goings-on. Let me try to summarize the essentials:

    Open access (OA) is PRIMARILY about making peer-reviewed journal articles in all disciplines freely accessible online to all users, rather than just to those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which they were published.

    There are two ways for authors to provide OA:

    (1) GOLD OA: Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal that makes its articles free for all online (often by charging the author for publishing).

    (2) GREEN OA: Self-archiving, free for all online, articles published in peer-reviewed subscription-based journals.

    UK universities and RCUK had been leading the worldwide OA movement since 2003 in mandating (requiring) Green OA, although most of the mandates have not yet been very effective, for lack of a compliance monitoring and verification system.

    The Finch Committee, under the influence of publishers (as well as a few specialities that needed more than free online access) recommended paying publishers extra for Gold instead of mandating cost-free Green.

    RCUK implemented the Finch Committee's recommendations, mandating Gold, and allowing Green only if Gold was unavailable.

    There was a storm of protest from scholars and scientists at this restriction on their freedom to choose where to publish based on journal quality standards alone.

    The Lords Select Committee pointed out some of these shortcomings. (A BIS Select Committee is still re-evaluating them.)

    RCUK has since clarified that authors may choose either Gold or Green, but it still has not adopted any compliance verification system for Green, but as instead allowed increasingly open-ended embargoes. (Reactions are still being evaluated.)

    HEFCE/REF has since proposed a Green mandate that would provide an effective compliance by requiring authors to self-archive in their institutional repositories immediately on publication -- regardless of whether the journal was subscription or Gold, and regardless of whether OA was immediate or embargoed -- in order to make their articles eligible for REF; institutions could then monitor and verify compliance. (Reactions are being evaluated.)

    No one has proposed putting an end to peer review (which is neither "expensive" nor "elaborate"), and the less urgent issue of further re-use rights for some is being given a lower priority than the urgent need of online access free for all.

    The EU and the US are likewise proceeding in the direction of Green OA mandates by institutions and funders.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Remember you need to be a registered THE member and logged in to comment on stories. Please read our terms and conditions for posting guidance.

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (3)
  • Rate
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (3)
  • Rate
  • Save
Jobs