- Britain searches for best way to promote open access
- British publishers object to open access proposals
- Academic, library and technology groups criticize new Elsevier sharing and hosting policy
- Analysis suggests MOOCs will be more disruptive than open access journals
- Historians' organization issues statement calling for caution on 'open access'
Open Access Push From Brussels
The European Union is set to throw the weight of its £64 billion ($102 billion) research funding program behind open-access publishing, Times Higher Education has learned.
An official at the European Commission, which is drafting proposals for the Horizon 2020 program, said that for researchers receiving funding from its program between 2014 and 2020, open-access publishing "will be the norm." A pilot under way in seven areas of its current funding program will be extended to become a mandate across all peer-reviewed research in the new scheme, which will cover fields ranging from particle physics to social science.
The organization is still negotiating with publishers and working up the details of the proposal, but it plans to put forward further ideas at an event in Brussels on June 20 and to publish an official policy before the summer. Speaking to Times Higher Education, the director general of research and innovation at the commission, Robert-Jan Smits, said its commitment to free online access was essential to driving free movement of researchers and ideas within Europe.
"We can make one hell of a difference," he said. "We’re clear about the huge potential that exists on open access."
Tim Gowers, the University of Cambridge professor of mathematics and Fields medalist who in Britain led a boycott of publisher Elsevier over its perceived opposition to open access, said that the biggest effect would be symbolic. "I think it will be hugely significant, even just if in getting people to make similar decisions," he said. "It begins to feel as though the snowball is getting bigger."
A number of research funders in Britain have increased their focus on open-access publishing this year. Having Europe join the bandwagon is likely to please David Willetts, the universities and science minister, who in a speech at the Publishers Association earlier this month acknowledged that Britain could lose out financially if it were alone in promoting open access.
The British government’s proposals will be finalized after a working group reports next month.
But with an annual budget almost 20 times that of the Wellcome Trust, the giant biomedical charity – one of the first big funders to have an open-access mandate – Horizon 2020’s policy may have a huge effect on others' decisions.
Although the commission is keeping the exact requirements under wraps, the pilot that will shape the eventual scheme used both “gold” and “green” models of open access. During the pilot, the commission underwrote the costs that publishers charged authors to publish their work freely, known as the “gold” model, but only for the duration of the project. It also explored the “green” model, in which holders of European Research Council grants were required to make their publications available in open-access repositories within six months of publication, while other grant holders had to do so after 6 to 12 months.
Stephen Curry, professor of structural biology at Imperial College London and a prominent advocate of open access, welcomed the commission’s move. But he stressed that real commitment would mean the commission agreeing to pay publishers’ fees even after a grant had ended, or contributing to a central pot of funding within researchers’ institutions to pay for open access publishing.
The commission also confirmed that it is in discussions with several publishers about the proposals.
Elsevier refused to comment on the commission’s plans, but it has previously said it is opposed to government mandates on open access.
Writing in response to a blog by Professor Gowers suggesting that the company was trying to influence the commission, Alicia Wise, Elsevier’s director of universal access, insisted that it was lobbying Brussels “to ensure that whatever policy is adopted can be implemented successfully."
"Publishers may not like it, but they’re going to have to fall in line," Curry said. “This is part of a bigger and growing picture. If you see the funders falling into line and adopting consistent policies with each other, that sends a clear signal that this is just the way we do research.”
Search for Jobs