Daniel Clery, Mixed Week for Open Access in the U.K., Science Magazine, November 12, 2004 (access limited to subscribers). Excerpt: 'Supporters of "open access" scientific publishing --in which authors pay the cost of publication and accepted papers are freely available online-- have received a public setback and a private boost in the United Kingdom in the past few days. The British government, saying it is "not obvious...that the 'author pays' business model would give better value for money than the current one," rejected recommendations from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to fund some costs associated with open-access publishing. The committee promptly accused the government of buckling under pressure from scientific publishers. On the other hand, the Wellcome Trust --the largest funder of basic biomedical research in the United Kingdom-- threw its considerable weight behind open-access publishing. It announced that it will require researchers it funds to deposit papers in a public archive "within 6 months of publication." ' (PS: The committee report recommended mandatory OA archiving as a condition of public funding, exactly the condition that the Wellcome Trust will apply to Wellcome funding. The government response misunderstood or deemphasized this to focus on something secondary. Here Science Magazine is doing the same.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/12/2004 01:03:00 PM.
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.
