A long-awaited position paper from the Research Councils UK (RCUK) has failed to clarify its position on free access to research information funded by British tax payers....[T]he paper makes no judgement on which publishing method authors should use and also fails to provide a clear time limit for when Research Council funded research should be made publicly available. “Publicly funded research must be made available and accessible for public examination as rapidly as practical,” it states.
Instead of a clear time limit, the RCUK has instigated a new study on author-pays publishing and self-archiving. RCUK has thrown its weight behind institutional repositories, however, saying: “Funded researchers should, where required to do so, deposit the outputs from research councils funded research in an acceptable repository.” Rather than tie its colours to open access or traditional publishers, the position paper states that: “It is for authors’ institutions to decide whether they are prepared to use funds for any page charges or other publishing fees.”
Institutional repository and open-access campaigner Stevan Harnad has criticised the RCUK’s stance, “The mandates are still needlessly wishy-washy about one important thing: when the deposit must take place,” he told IWR. “None of this is specific enough to be a clear, effective mandate.”
Posted by
Peter Suber at 7/13/2006 07:40:00 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.
