Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
Eliot Marshall, Britain's Research Agencies Endorse Public Access, Science Magazine, July 8, 2005 (accessible only to subscribers). Excerpt:
Starting in October, all investigators funded by the big eight research agencies in Britain may be required to put their papers and meeting talks in a free public archive "at the earliest opportunity, wherever possible at or around the time of publication."...Despite the mandatory tone, journals will find some wiggle room that may allow them to keep their usual embargoes. RCUK says its mandate is "subject to copyright and licensing arrangements" that can restrict what authors do....RCUK spokesperson Heather Weaver said this phrase recognizes that "publishers vary" in how they handle rights, and the government is setting no fixed time frame for free data release --other than "as soon as possible." Advocates for the open-access movement praised the RCUK announcement. Some think it comes closer to their goals than a policy announced earlier this year by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which merely encourages authors to put papers in the U.S. PubMed Central database within 12 months of publication....Peter Suber --a professor of philosophy at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, and leader of the Public Knowledge advocacy group in Washington, D.C.-- described it as "an excellent policy" because it is mandatory, unlike NIH's. But he says the copyright "loophole … will allow publishers to impose embargoes." Publishers, whose revenues are threatened by the open-access movement, found fault with the RCUK approach. A group representing 320 nonprofit, academic, and scientific society journals --the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers in Clapham, U.K.-- released a critique on 30 June by Executive Director Sally Morris. Among other concerns, it warns that the open-access trend may "siphon off" subscriptions to society publications. |
|||