The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal

Record type: Other

The STM have written a response to the RCUK proposal in which they too, like the ALPSP, adduce reasons for delaying and modifying the implementation of the RCUK self-archiving policy. The principal substantive misunderstanding about the RCUK policy itself is that the STM is arguing as if RCUK were proposing to mandate a different publishing business model (Open Access [OA] Publishing) whereas RCUK is proposing to mandate no such thing: It is merely proposing to mandate that RCUK fundees self-archive the final author’s drafts of journal articles resulting from RCUK-funded research in order to make their findings accessible to all potential users whose institutions cannot afford access to the published journal version – in order to maximise the uptake, usage and impact of British research output. As such, the author’s free self-archived version is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the journal’s paid version. STM (like ALPSP) express concern that self-archiving may diminish their revenues. It is pointed out by way of reply (as was pointed out in the reply to ALPSP) that all evidence to date is in fact to the contrary. STM express concern that self-archiving will compromise peer review. It is pointed out that it is the author's peer-reviewed draft that is being self-archived. STM express concern that self-archiving the author's version will create confusion about versions: It is pointed out that for those would-be users who cannot afford the paid journal version, the author's version is incomparably better than no version at all, and indeed has been demonstrated to enhance citation impact by 50-250%. STM express concern about the costs of Institutional Repositories (IRs): It is pointed out that IRs are neither expensive nor intended as substitutes for journal publishing, so their costs are irrelevant to STM. STM then express concern that the OA publishing business model would cost more than the current subscription-based model: It is pointed out that the OA model is not what is being mandated by RCUK.

HTML reb-stm.html - Other
Download (40kB)
PDF reb-stm.pdf - Other
Download (116kB)
Microsoft Word reb-stm.doc - Other
Download (148kB)

Citation

Harnad, Stevan (2005) Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal

More information

Published date: 2005
Keywords: RCUK, STM, institutional repository, self-archiving, research impact, open access, institutional open access policy, citations, download, publishing models
Organisations: Web & Internet Science

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 261168
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/261168
PURE UUID: 98975497-9373-4e26-b61d-9e3270166091

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 31 Aug 2005
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 09:04

Export record

Contributors

Author: Stevan Harnad

University divisions


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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×