In December, the U.K. Parliament conducted a debate on the Science and Technology Select Committee's report on scientific publications, and reiterated its position that the government should not intervene in the market nor fund institutional repositories.
Comment. Wiley must think this news is relevant to the value of its stock. But if so, then it should be careful about drawing attention to it and then misreporting it. For in fact, the U.K. Parliament did not oppose the funding of institutional repositories. Some members did and some members didn't; there was no vote or other resolution. See the transcript of the December debate. Moreover, funding institutional repositories is less important than mandating that publicly-funded researchers deposit their peer-reviewed manuscripts in them. That is still the policy proposed by the RCUK.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 3/08/2006 10:14:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
