Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
Australian commission recommends an 'author pays' OA mandate The Australian government Productivity Commission has released a new report, Public Support for Science and Innovation, March 27, 2007. Also see the press release and overview. In the full report, see esp. Section 5.7 (pp. 227-244), "Access to the results of publicly-funded research". Also see Box 5.11 (p. 229), "Some Australian Government actions to enhance access to the results of publicly-funded research"; Box 512 (p. 230), "Recommendations of the PMSEIC Working Group on Data for Science"; Box 5.13 (p. 231), "Suggestions by Houghton et al. for improving access"; Box 514 (p. 233) on the ARC OA policy. Excerpt:
Comment. I'm glad to see that the Commission is moving toward an OA mandate. But this particular proposal is confused and confusing. The Commission recommends an 'author pays' OA mandate as a way to bring about OA while ensuring that journals are protected financially. But does it realize that not all journals offer an OA option? Does it realize that even among OA journals, most do not charge publication fees? Does it realize that it may be forcing journals to change their business models, something that (at least in their rhetoric) publishers oppose as much as threats to their revenue streams? Does it realize that insofar as journals do not change their business models, the new policy will limit the freedom of authors to publish in the journals of their choice? The Commission says that the publication fees might be provided by funding agencies themselves, but is it mandating that the agencies provide the funds? Does it realize that mandating deposit in an OA repository (green OA) rather than publication in an OA journal (gold OA) would avoid all these problems? Update. Also see Stevan Harnad's comments on the proposal. |