Open Access News

The Australian Government Productivity Commission has released an important study, Public Support for Science and Innovation: Draft Research Report (November 2, 2006).  (Thanks to Colin Steele.)  Excerpt:

Impediments to the functioning of the innovation system [:]....There is scope for the ARC and the NHMRC to play a more active role than they currently do in promoting access to the results of research they fund. They could require as a condition of funding that research papers, data and other information produced as a result of their funding are made publicly available such as in an ‘open access’ repository.

The Australian Government has sought to enhance access to the results of publicly funded research through the:

• development of an Accessibility Framework for Publicly Funded Research; and
• allocation of funding under the Systemic Infrastructure Initiative to build technical information infrastructure that supports the creation, dissemination of and access to knowledge, and the use of digital assets and their management (box 5.10)....

In a recent report to DEST, Houghton et al. (2006) estimated net gains from improving access to publicly-funded research across the board and in particular research sectors (table 5.2).

• The estimated benefits from an assumed 5 per cent increase in access and efficiency and level of social rate of return were between $2 million (ARC competitively-funded research) and $628 million (gross expenditure on R&D).
• Assuming a move from this level of improved access and efficiency to a national system of institutional repositories in Australia over twenty years, the estimated benefit–cost ratios were between 3.1 (NHMRC-funded research) to 214 (gross expenditure on R&D)....

Of interest, is whether funding agencies themselves could become more actively involved in enhancing access to the results of the research they fund....

In their recent report to DEST, Houghton et al. (2006) made a number of suggestions to improve access to and dissemination of research including:

• developing a national system of institutional or enterprise-based repositories to support new modes of enquiry and research; ...
• ensuring that the Research Quality Framework supports and encourages the development of new, more open scholarly communication mechanisms, rather than encouraging ‘a retreat’ by researchers to conventional publication forms and media, and a reliance by evaluators upon traditional publication metrics (for example, by ensuring dissemination and impact are an integral part of evaluation); 
• encouraging funding agencies (for example, ARC and NHMRC) to mandate that the results of their supported research be made available in open access archives and repositories;
• encouraging universities and research institutions to support the development of new, more open scholarly communication mechanisms, through, for example, the development of ‘hard or soft open access’ mandates for their supported research; and
• providing support for a structured advocacy program to raise awareness and inform all stakeholders about the potential benefits of more open scholarly communication alternatives, and provide leadership in such areas as copyright (for example, by encouraging use of ‘creative commons’ licensing) (pp. xii-xiii)....

Several impediments to innovation should be addressed: ...

• published papers and data from ARC and NHMRC-funded projects should be freely and publicly available....

Comment. It's important that this report was written by a government commission and important that it recommends an OA mandate. 

From the file of preliminaries:

You are invited to examine this draft research study and to provide written submissions to the Commission. Submissions should reach the Commission by Thursday, 21 December 2006.  In addition, the Commission intends to hold a limited number of consultations to obtain feedback on this draft. The Commission intends to present its final report to the Government in early March 2007.

Update. The online version of the report doesn't tell us where to send comments, an unfortunate (but remediable) omission. Colin Steele tells me that the print edition of the report asks for comments to be sent by email to Science [at] pc.gov.au. The Commission prefers to receive comments in "Word or similar text format rather than Adobe PDF".

Update. The Productivity Commission has posted a circular in which it elaborates on how to submit comments on the draft report:

You are invited to examine Draft Report and to provide written submissions to the Commission. (In addition, the Commission intends to hold a limited number of consultations to obtain feedback on the draft.)...There is no specified format for submissions. They may range from a brief outline of your views, to a much more substantial assessment of a range of issues. Where possible, you should provide relevant data and documentation to support your views. Written submissions should reach the Commission by Thursday, 21 December 2006....Submissions will normally be placed on the Commission’s website shortly after receipt, unless they are marked confidential or accompanied by a request to delay release for short period of time....Submissions may also be sent by mail, fax or audio cassette....By email: science@pc.gov.au.