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.

Overseas academics ‘will have open access exemptions’

Exceptions in the UK funding councils’ open access policy will be made for researchers hired from abroad, the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s head of research has pledged.

'Lock' button on Apple keyboard

David Sweeney, director of research, innovation and skills at Hefce, made the promise in response to concerns expressed by Sir Ian Diamond, vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, at the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s first hearing of its open access inquiry.

Sir Ian told the hearing, held today, that the requirement in the funding councils’ draft open access policy for all papers submitted to the 2020 research excellence framework to be freely available online could effectively prevent universities from hiring researchers from abroad since their papers were unlikely to be open access and, hence, would be ineligible for REF submission. 

But Mr Sweeney told Times Higher Education after the hearing that the funding councils had “no intention” of constraining universities’ hiring policies.

“We recognise the need to make allowances for outputs published before staff were appointed and we look forward to working with Universities UK and others on the details,” he said.

Meanwhile, Sir Ian dismissed concerns that junior researchers would lose out in the rationing of the block grant for article fees provided by Research Councils UK.

He said that it was in the “strong interest” of Aberdeen to make sure the careers of those it brought to the university “flourished”.

The three-hour hearing also saw Douglas Kell, chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, express confidence that compliance with RCUK’s open access policy would be very high. He said a recent survey by RCUK of 108 “top” journals found that 97 per cent were already compliant.

On the cost of open access, Audrey McCulloch, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, said that in order to sustain the “income they expect from their publishing arms” in a fully open access world, society publishers would potentially have to double their current article fees.

Alicia Wise, director of universal access at commercial publisher Elsevier, defended the company’s 37 per cent profit margins, attributing them to its efficiency. She said its average article fee was in line with the standard figure estimated by the Finch report on open access of around £1,750.

She suggested higher education could save money by avoiding the “duplicate effort” of requiring papers to be deposited in institutional repositories even when they were freely available on publishers’ websites. She described forcing authors to self-archive papers as “one administrative hassle too far”.

Cameron Neylon, advocacy director at PLOS, said he had no problem with authors paying high fees provided this genuinely correlated with a high quality of service. He suggested that publishers who were worried that a Microsoft Word version of an article in a repository would damage traffic to their own site were not really adding the value they claimed to the article.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

Rate this article  (5 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 (1)

  • For the record, having watched the whole three hours of the inquiry, this headline is not at all what I took away from them -- it seemed like an extremely minor footnote. The real story for me was that the BIS Committee seemed keen to move forward more quickly with open access than the current set of policies suggests we're moving -- various questioners were impatient with academics, funding bodies and (especially) publishers about their tail-dragging.

    I will be very interested to see the report that emerges from this inquiry. I think there's good reason to hope it will be much more progressive than the extremely disappointing one from the recent Lords inquiry.

    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 (1)
  • Rate
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (1)
  • Rate
  • Save
Jobs