Open Access News

[1]...The British Academy responds as the UK national academy for the humanities and social sciences, as a funder of research (with both public and private funds), and as a learned society with its own publishing programme. [2] In April 2005 the Academy published a policy review document on E-resources for research in the humanities and social sciences, which addresses the issues raised in the RCUK statement. The report supported ‘the principle of wide and ready access to research outputs and other research resources’. In particular it stressed how important it was for the humanities and social sciences to engage with open access issues, so that the agenda was not over-dominated by the natural sciences. [3] The RCUK position statement appears to be driven primarily by considerations that relate to the natural sciences....In the humanities, the dissemination of scholarship is less dominated by journal articles and conference proceedings: monographs continue to play a key role. Scholarship can be less driven by the very latest published findings: articles published 30–50 years ago remain important....[4]...The RCUK position implies that an alternative system will have to be devised and implemented. The statement acknowledges that new models will require new solutions, but provides little firm evidence in support of its optimism that these solutions will be found. There are doubts that need to be addressed. [5] The cost in money and time of establishing and maintaining institutional or other repositories should not be underestimated. The statement is vague about likely costs, where the funding will come from, and indeed whether this will be more cost-effective than the existing model....[W]ill there be adequate support for individual researchers seeking to deposit their material? And it is surely doubtful whether learned societies across the humanities and social sciences are equally willing or geared up to take on any ‘kite marking’ responsibilities — at least without any reimbursement of the associated costs. [6] The statement is also vague about the costs associated with open access journals. A typical ‘author-pays’ fee of £1500 might not constitute a significant addition to a typical research grant in the natural sciences, but it would form a significant percentage increase on the small individual grants that are common in the humanities and social sciences. Where is this additional funding to come from? Indeed much output in the humanities does not derive from research grant funding at all: is it likely that funds will be available just for fees? [7]...There is also the question as to whether institutional repositories are best suited to meet the needs of individual researchers, and whether parts, or even all, of the academic community might be better served by subject repositories....[8] With such doubts about future models, one would expect that the existing publishing model should not be undermined in the meantime. The RCUK position accepts that articles should be deposited in e-print repositories ‘subject to copyright and licensing arrangements’, but makes clear its view that such restrictions should be as liberal as possible. The Academy is not surprised that some university presses are continuing to assert limitations to defend the value that they provide through the peer review process — for example, imposing a delay in access....[9] An equivalent requirement to deposit articles is not being imposed on British Academy research grants awarded in the academic year 2005/06 because the terms and conditions have already been set and publicly announced. The position will be kept under review, particularly in light of the availability of suitable repositories.

Comment. Four quick replies. (1) On #4: The RCUK isn't seeking a solution yet to be found. It's funding a solution that it's already found. (2) On #5: The cost in time and money of maintaining institutional repositories should not be overestimated. Repositories not already funded are likely to be funded by JISC. Moreover, since the network of interoperable repositories will supplement, not supplant, "the existing model", the call for a comparison of their cost-effectiveness is misleading. (3) On #7: Nothing in the RCUK policy rules out subject repositories or the simultaneous deposit of RCUK-funded research in more than one repository. (4) On #8: We'll have to agree to disagree about whether RCUK should close the copyright loophole in the current draft. Since it allows publishers to impose embargoes of arbitrary length, the loophole effectively removes the teeth from the OA "mandate" and thereby puts publisher prosperity ahead of research productivity.