RE: Open access: a must for Wellcome Trust researchers [response to comments from ALPSP]

["Kiley ,Mr Robert" <r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk>]

Let me take the opportunity to respond to Sally's comments on this list,
and explain the Wellcome Trust position with regard to open access.

The Trust has spent more than three years developing in developing its
policy on unrestricted and open access to the research literature it
funds.  It has done this by commissioning research, (see
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD003185.html and
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD003181.html) and talking with other
funders, researchers and more recently publishers, including: Blackwell,
Elsevier, OUP, the Royal Society, the Publishers Association, the
International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers,
BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science.  At all times we have
talked openly about our intentions in the media, on email discussion
groups and at numerous conferences where we have trailed our policy
intentions.
 
After much careful consideration we concluded that supporting open access
publishing, and free access repositories to the research literature, is in
the best interests of the researchers we support and the work they
produce.  It is clear that this is a view shared by a number of research
funding bodies, from many countries, and so it is vital that all
publishers, be they not-for-profit or commercial, start to consider how
they can best meet the needs of all the stakeholders involved in the
process of disseminating research.
 
For our part, we recognise that the requirement to deposit papers in
PubMed Central (PMC) will put some pressure on the subscription model,
although that is conjecture at this stage, and so we have included in our
policy a maximum delay (or embargo) of 6 months between the publication
date and appearance in PMC.  This delay will allow the market a period of
time to adjust to the new requirements.
 
In addition, the Trust considers that the open access model of publishing
is a more efficient and cost effective method of disseminating original
research.  In support of this, the Trust will pay for the costs of
managing the peer review, page processing charges etc. (the "author-pays"
model) should a researcher choose to publish in an open access journal.  
Some journals are already experimenting with a hybrid model, such as those
introduced by the OUP (Oxford Open) or Springer (Open Choice), as a means
of funding by charging authors (in effect their funders) to make
individual papers open access, whilst maintaining a subscription base.  
In time the intention is to see if a move towards full open access to the
whole journal is sustainable and this seems like a sensible approach other
publishers may wish to explore.
 
It has always been our position that our policy on unrestricted and open
access would be implemented in two stages: applying to new grants from 1
October 2005 and, again allowing for a period of adjustment, to existing
grants only after 1 October 2006.
 
It is only right and proper that we have contacted all our grant holders,
informing them of our policy and providing them with a login name and
password to enable them to deposit their manuscripts in PMC, should they
choose to do so prior to this becoming a condition of their funding.
However, all of our communications have pointed to our website where this
phasing of the grant condition has been explicitly stated and all
Trust-funded researchers are encouraged to make themselves fully aware of
our policy before taking any action.  It is worth remembering any grant
condition will pre-date any subsequent copyright arrangement with a
publisher and the 12-month phasing of this policy, with respect to our
existing grant holders, takes account of any papers that might already be
in preparation.
 
Therefore, the Trust rejects any assertions made on the Liblicense email
discussion list (4 and 5 October 2005) that we have acted in bad faith or
that we are in any way inciting our researchers to breach the terms of the
contracts some of them they may have signed with publishers and feel there
is no justification at all in the claim by ALPSP that the Trust needs to
issue any form of 'retraction'.
 
We have received a number of responses from our researchers directly,
including a number of highly supportive comments, and the majority of
those with queries have been directed to the supporting material on our
website (<http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/openaccess>) where those who have
concerns have been able to find a satisfactory answer.

As with all of our grant conditions we will continue to keep this policy
under review.

Robert Kiley

Head of Systems Strategy & Acting Librarian
Wellcome Library.
Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Sally Morris (ALPSP)
Sent: 05 October 2005 13:32
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Open access: a must for Wellcome Trust researchers

Not so.

Many worried authors have pointed out to our members that, despite what
the Wellcome Trust says on its website, it has in fact contacted existing
grant recipients requiring them to deposit their articles;  many of these
authors already have articles in press or published.  I am advising
publishers to tell these authors that they are not obliged to comply, as
the retrospective policy does not come into force for a year.  However, I
think this is in very bad faith (particularly given the assertions below)
and I call on Wellcome to desist and indeed to contact all the pre-1 Oct
grant recipients they have already approached, retracting this apparent
requirement.

Sally

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kiley, Mr Robert" <r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: Open access: a must for Wellcome Trust researchers

> Re: Sally's comment that the Wellcome Trust "appears to be inciting
> (nay, forcing) its researchers to breach the terms of the contracts some
> of them they may have signed with publishers."
>
> The simple fact is that the Trust's grant conditions apply to
> researchers and their institutions long before any subsequent decisions
> are taken about where to publish the results or what the copyright
> arrangements for publication may be.  It is not possible to breach the
> terms of contracts that do not yet exist: in what way, therefore, is the
> Trust forcing its researchers to breach copyright agreements?
>
> Robert Kiley
>
> Head of Systems Strategy & Acting Librarian
> Wellcome Library.
> 210, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
> Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8726; mailto:r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk
> Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk