UK Inquiry: Conclusions and Recommendations released today/BMC

["DECLAN BUTLER, NATURE" <d.butler@nature-france.com>]

release
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-edited-by: liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:54 EDT
Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Precedence: bulk

Fyi; a slightly more critical take... Declan

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v430/n6998/f
ull/430390b_fs.html
 
Nature 430, 390 (22 July 2004); doi:10.1038/430390b  
 
Britain decides 'open access' is still an open issue 

DECLAN BUTLER 

Can journals function if authors, instead of readers, carry the cost of
publication? An inquiry by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee concluded this week that we will just have to wait and see.
After five months of investigating access to journals in science,
technology and medicine, the committee has reported that the concept of
'author-pays' open access seems "viable" but requires "further
experimentation".

In the meantime, the report advises the government to oblige UK authors to
publish articles on their institutions' websites.

Many people have questioned whether the author-pays open-access model, as
pursued by the Public Library of Science and BioMed Central, for example,
is economically sustainable. At the same time, the current system of
'reader-pays' has resulted in spiralling journal costs that many libraries
can no longer afford. "This cannot continue," says committee chairman Ian
Gibson, a Labour member of parliament.

The report gives advice on running open-access schemes more smoothly. For
example, it suggests that funders include money in grants to cover author
fees.

But the report also says that it is too early to tell how open access will
pan out. "The author-pays model needs more work; that's why we are saying
we shouldn't go into it right away. We have to look at the possibilities
and perhaps have a pilot scheme for a certain length of time," says
Gibson.

Most of the data used in the debate, such as the cost of publishing, come
from the 'grey literature' of reports from the UK-based charity the
Wellcome Trust, and from publisher statements or online debates, says
Gibson. "I'm suspicious of the figures thrown around," he adds. The
committee recommends that the government carries out a comprehensive
independent study.

Its strongest recommendation is that the UK government should ensure that
funders make it compulsory for researchers to post their papers online.
"Our idea - a rabbit out of the hat - will make the university library
system sit up and listen," says Gibson.

The idea of posting material online has been around for a decade, and an
increasing number of institutions are building online repositories.
DSpace, for example, developed at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, aims to store the institute's entire intellectual output,
including data and course materials (see Nature 420, 17-18; 2002).

Gibson says he hopes the report will make researchers aware of the issue.
"The sad thing is that academics don't really care as long as they get
their work published," notes Gibson. According to a recent survey by the
Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research at City
University London, 82% of working scientists say they know little or
nothing about open access.

http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C 2004 Nature Publishing Group
Privacy Policy fy

Declan Butler
European correspondent, Nature
7 rue Guy de la Brosse
75005 Paris, France
Tel: (33) 1 43 36 59 90
 
E-mail: d.butler@nature.com or d.butler@nature-france.com
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/ 
news@nature.com:  http://www.nature.com/news/