A new report released on 27th March 2009 by Universities UK and the Research Information Network, delivers an important set of recommendations aiming to ensure best practice at UK higher education institutions (HEIs) in relation to the payment of open access publication fees. The UUK/RIN working group included representatives from universities, research funders, publishers and research authors, and the report's recommendations identify actions each of these groups can take in order to ensure that the funding of open access publishing is handled in a coordinated way.
A key focus of the report is the need for institutions to take an integrated approach, and to communicate clearly to their employees. The report notes that "the response in the UK to the development of open access journals remains haphazard". It also notes that a 2008 JISC survey of UK biomedical authors found that "only 28% of those employed by HEIs believed that they had received any guidance from their employer on the payment of publication fees" even though 72% of these respondents had published in an open access journals in the last 5 years
To address this lack of clearly communicated policies, the report recommends "HEIs should designate a single person at senior level (for example, a pro or deputy vice chancellor) to coordinate their activities", and furthermore "All funders should clarify how they will provide financial support for researchers in meeting their open access policies in general, and the payment of publication fees in particular."
Noting that the payment of Open Access publication fees as directly-incurred costs (i.e. from grants) is often problematic, the report unambiguously advises institutions to develop central open access funds: "We recommend HEIs establish dedicated budgets to which researchers can apply for funds to meet the costs of publication fees".
The reports relevance extends beyond the UK, especially in the light of recent mandatory open access initiatives in the USA at Harvard and MIT. Central funding for open access publication costs is a natural way to ensure that such open access deposit policies can be sustained long-term, without undermining peer-review and the journal system on which scholarly communication depends. BioMed Central has produced case studies on several institutions which already have such open access funds in operation, and we are forward to collaborating with the many other institutions that are now working to develop similar schemes.
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.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
