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

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

I beg to differ

The Wellcome's message to EXISTING grant-holders starts by saying:

"the Trust requires copies of all authors' research papers, supported in
whole or in part by Wellcome Trust funding, to be made freely accessible
on the Internet as soon as possible, and in any event no later that six
(6)  months after the publication."

There is NO MENTION of the fact that this policy, in fact, only applies to
grants awarded from 1 October 2005 and, since it was sent to existing
grant recipients (including many who have papers in press or indeed
published, and have thus signed agreements with publishers) I can well
understand their consternation

I fail to see why Wellcome does not think a clarification is necessary

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>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: Open access: a must for Wellcome Trust researchers [response to 
comments from ALPSP]

> 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