Open Access News

The UK Research Information Network (RIN) has published a new document, Research and the Scholarly Communications Process: Towards Strategic Goals for Public Policy: A Statement of Principles, February 2007.

From the RIN press release:

Scholarly communications has become a battlefield over the past four or five years. Researchers, funders, publishers and librarians have debated how best to exploit the opportunities presented by new technologies to maximise access to the information resources that researchers create. Researchers now expect immediate access to articles in scholarly journals and other information resources directly on their desktop; and there is potential to transform the provision of information still further, through text-mining and linking different information sources together.

Maximising access to research results through an effective scholarly communications system is an essential underpinning for high-quality research and knowledge transfer in the UK. But publishers are concerned that developments such as the deposit of journal articles in freely-accessible repositories may put at risk the whole future of scholarly publishing, and the highly-valued and quality-assured services that they provide.

It is in this context that the RIN has brought together the key players, and they have reached agreement on the principles and goals at the heart of the scholarly communications process. We are particularly pleased to have achieved such a convergence of views in the UK

The statement has been signed by some critics of strong OA policy, like ALPSP and STM, and by some friends of strong OA policy, like JISC, the RCUK, and the Wellcome Trust.

One reason this kind of agreement is possible is that the statement doesn't directly endorse or oppose OA.

From the statement itself:

The scholarly communications process involves a range of closely-linked activities that contribute to fulfilling seven broad purposes or objectives which flow roughly in sequence:

1. the pursuit of research aimed at generating new knowledge and understanding
2. assuring the quality of the information outputs generated by researchers
3. ensuring appropriate recognition and reward for all those engaged in the scholarly communications process
4. presenting, publishing and disseminating information outputs digitally, orally, in print and other forms
5. facilitating access to and use of information outputs by researchers and others who have an interest in them 
6. assessing and evaluating the usage and impact of information outputs 
7. preserving digital, printed and other information outputs, so that those of long-term value are accessible for the indefinite future

[A]ccess to research outputs, particularly those stemming from public investment, should be provided as speedily and effectively as possible, so that researchers and members of other communities can read and make use of the latest research results.

[A] balance is struck in the public interest between the requirements for recognition, reward and protection for rights-holders on the one hand, and for speedy and effective access by users on the other....

Easy and effective access to and use of information outputs depends on the interlocking roles and partnerships between publishers, libraries, and intermediary service providers; data centres and repositories; search and navigation services; and network services. All depend on each other in creating an information infrastructure to ensure that researchers and others are made aware of, and can readily discover, access and use the information outputs of interest to them. The key goals of public policy are therefore that...access is provided in managed environments which emphasise ease of discovery and use, with as few restrictions as possible....

Comments.

1. Because the statement has the support of friends and foes of strong OA policy, it will probably carry great weight with policy-makers, which is clearly part of the idea.  But I'm not sure how far that will calm the waters of OA.  Once OA comes up as a policy question, the signatories will likely go their separate ways again.
2. [A]ccess to research outputs, particularly those stemming from public investment, should be provided as speedily and effectively as possible.  Publishers who sign this statement should accept OA mandates and focus their lobbying on the length of the embargo period.
3. [A] balance is struck in the public interest between the requirements for recognition, reward and protection for rights-holders on the one hand, and for speedy and effective access by users on the other.  This odd passage raises many questions for me.  Does it essentially retract the one just before it?  Are we really trying to maximize the speed and effectiveness of access or are we compromising that goal in order to protect publishers?  We know that a "balance is struck" but should a balance be struck?  If so, why and which one?  Is the balance itself in the public interest or is the balance between the public interest in research and the private interest in publisher revenue?  Is "reward...for rights-holders" another way of talking about revenue?  Profit?  How much reward will we let offset the goal of maximizing the speed and effectiveness of access?  Is this balance a goal only for private-sector publishers or also for government agencies charged with promoting research in the public interest?
4. I support all seven goals, in part because they are so innocuously stated.  I'm all for finding common ground and building on it, but I don't see the gain in gathering signatures for goals this fuzzy.  At the same time, however, I don't mind endorsing them myself as long I can make clear (as I'm doing now) that I support a much more strongly-stated goal on access.  We know that JISC, the RCUK, and the Wellcome Trust also support a stronger position on OA, just as ALPSP and STM support a stronger position on publisher reward.  So is this progress?

Update.  Also see the press releases on the statement from ALPSP and JISC.