Written Evidence to 2003 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Written Evidence to 2003 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The UK should maximise the benefits to the British tax-payer from the research it funds by mandating not only (as it does now) that all findings should be published, but also that open access to them should be provided, for all potential users, through either of the two available means: (1) publishing them in open-access journals (whenever suitable ones exists) (5%) and (2) publishing the rest (95%) in toll-access journals whilst also self-archiving them publicly on their own university's website. (1) Open access (worldwide) to UK research output maximises the impact (ie, visibility, usage, application, citation) of UK research output, enhancing the productivity and progress of UK (and worldwide) research, thereby maximising the return on the UK tax-payer's support for research. (2) The unified open-access provision strategy supported by the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Berlin Declaration, and other such current movements involves two complementary strategies OAJ and OAA: (OAJ) Researchers publish their research in an open-access journal if a suitable one exists, otherwise (OAA) they publish it in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it in their own research institution's open-access research archive. So why is the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into scientific publications considering only open access journals (OAJ), rather than also considering, at least as seriously, mandating university-based provision of open access to their own (peer-reviewed, published) research output (OAA)? (3) It would be a great mistake (and the press release already suggests some risk of making it) if open-access provision were to be mistakenly identified only, or even primarily, with OAJ (open access journal publishing). There are still far too few open-access journals, whereas OAA self-archiving has the power to provide immediate open access for all the rest of UK research output. The UK government can do a great deal to maximise the access to and the impact of UK research output through government research funding policies and through HEFCE influence over academic institutional policy through research assessment and funding, in particular, by extending existing publish-or-perish policy to mandate open-access provision. (4) What parliament should mandate is accordingly open-access provision for all funded research.
UK research access policy, self-archiving mandate, Select Committee for Science and Technology, open access, institutional repositories, open archives, DTI
Carr, Les
0572b10e-039d-46c6-bf05-57cce71d3936
DeRoure, Dave
02879140-3508-4db9-a7f4-d114421375da
Harnad, Stevan
442ee520-71a1-4283-8e01-106693487d8b
Hey, Jessie
cc93a4e7-daf7-492a-9f83-5cbdfd281f85
Hey, Tony
f4e293d1-493d-4a14-9c89-9be45872531e
Hitchcock, Steve
c0b120a1-439e-43c9-9ba6-647e77f40f3c
Oppenheim, Charles
d59091c1-26e9-43dd-a5e9-8308177d78c5
February 2004
Carr, Les
0572b10e-039d-46c6-bf05-57cce71d3936
DeRoure, Dave
02879140-3508-4db9-a7f4-d114421375da
Harnad, Stevan
442ee520-71a1-4283-8e01-106693487d8b
Hey, Jessie
cc93a4e7-daf7-492a-9f83-5cbdfd281f85
Hey, Tony
f4e293d1-493d-4a14-9c89-9be45872531e
Hitchcock, Steve
c0b120a1-439e-43c9-9ba6-647e77f40f3c
Oppenheim, Charles
d59091c1-26e9-43dd-a5e9-8308177d78c5
Carr, Les, DeRoure, Dave, Harnad, Stevan, Hey, Jessie, Hey, Tony, Hitchcock, Steve and Oppenheim, Charles
(2004)
Written Evidence to 2003 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Abstract
The UK should maximise the benefits to the British tax-payer from the research it funds by mandating not only (as it does now) that all findings should be published, but also that open access to them should be provided, for all potential users, through either of the two available means: (1) publishing them in open-access journals (whenever suitable ones exists) (5%) and (2) publishing the rest (95%) in toll-access journals whilst also self-archiving them publicly on their own university's website. (1) Open access (worldwide) to UK research output maximises the impact (ie, visibility, usage, application, citation) of UK research output, enhancing the productivity and progress of UK (and worldwide) research, thereby maximising the return on the UK tax-payer's support for research. (2) The unified open-access provision strategy supported by the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Berlin Declaration, and other such current movements involves two complementary strategies OAJ and OAA: (OAJ) Researchers publish their research in an open-access journal if a suitable one exists, otherwise (OAA) they publish it in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it in their own research institution's open-access research archive. So why is the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into scientific publications considering only open access journals (OAJ), rather than also considering, at least as seriously, mandating university-based provision of open access to their own (peer-reviewed, published) research output (OAA)? (3) It would be a great mistake (and the press release already suggests some risk of making it) if open-access provision were to be mistakenly identified only, or even primarily, with OAJ (open access journal publishing). There are still far too few open-access journals, whereas OAA self-archiving has the power to provide immediate open access for all the rest of UK research output. The UK government can do a great deal to maximise the access to and the impact of UK research output through government research funding policies and through HEFCE influence over academic institutional policy through research assessment and funding, in particular, by extending existing publish-or-perish policy to mandate open-access provision. (4) What parliament should mandate is accordingly open-access provision for all funded research.
Archive
archive-263105-1
- Other
Archive
archive-263105-2
- Other
More information
Published date: February 2004
Additional Information:
The UK Government Science and Technology Committee report was extremely thoughtful and responsive. Diverging from its original trajectory http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech111203a.cfm the Committee essentially adopted the Southampton/ECS recommendations in full: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39909.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm The Committee's final formal proposal was that Open-Access Provision, through institutional self-archiving, should be made mandatatory for all journal articles resulting from UK-funded research. The next step will be for universities and research institutions to adopt and implement such a mandatory Open Access Provision policy: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php The Southampton/Loughborough/EScience written recommendations were co-signed by: Dr. Les Carr (Southampton), Professor Dave DeRoure (Southampton), Professor Stevan Harnad (Southampton,) Dr. Jessie Hey (Southampton), Professor Tony Hey (eScience), Dr. Steve Hitchcock (Southampton), Professor Charles Oppenheim (Loughborough) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we151.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm See also the University of Southampton recommendations: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/soton7.doc Commentary On: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech111203a.cfm
Keywords:
UK research access policy, self-archiving mandate, Select Committee for Science and Technology, open access, institutional repositories, open archives, DTI
Organisations:
Web & Internet Science
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 263105
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/263105
PURE UUID: 50be8fdd-e334-4d2b-9475-cb41f4e8a5e4
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 13 Oct 2006
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 02:48
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Dave DeRoure
Author:
Stevan Harnad
Author:
Jessie Hey
Author:
Tony Hey
Author:
Steve Hitchcock
Author:
Charles Oppenheim
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics