Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the British Psychological Society
The British Psychological Society, incorporated by Royal Charter, is the learned and professional body for psychology and psychologists in the United Kingdom. We are a registered charity with a total membership of just under 50,000.
Under its Royal Charter, the objective of the British Psychological Society is “to promote the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of psychology pure and applied and especially to promote the efficiency and usefulness of members by setting up a high standard of professional education and knowledge”. We are committed to providing and disseminating evidence-based expertise and advice, engaging with policy and decision makers, and promoting the highest standards in learning and teaching, professional practice and research.
The British Psychological Society is an examining body granting certificates and diplomas in specialist areas of professional applied psychology.
1. Executive Summary
1.1 We are supportive of the need to increase the openness and availability of research findings, and exploit technological advances in publishing. We are, though, concerned that the rate of movement to Gold open access may lead to unintended consequences with respect to the sustainability of UK research publishing and our competitiveness in international research. We would urge that further consideration takes place in a number of key areas with a view to ensuring that all available evidence is distilled to inform decision-making. As a learned society, we would offer whatever assistance we can in this respect.
1.2 Our particular concerns are that:
In the move to Gold, the sustainability of the Green route has had insufficient attention.
Assumptions concerning the relationship between embargo periods and subscription cancellations have not been evidence-based and have not taken into account fully differences in publishing patterns between disciplines.
The impact of current mandates upon the viability of some learned societies has been underplayed.
The CC-BY licence will “give away” UK innovation.
The proposed system will remain underfunded, and increased costs of APCs and administration will reduce funds for research.
In leading the move to Gold internationally, the UK may disadvantage our own researchers and their output.
2. The government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications”, including its preference for the “gold” over the “green” open access model
2.1 The Finch Report emphasised the importance of a gradual transition to Gold open access to allow stakeholders to put in place sustainable systems. In moving ahead very rapidly after consideration of the Finch Report, we wonder if the Government has undertaken sufficient analysis of the intended and unintended outcomes of the different models.
2.2 The Finch Report drew attention to the significant cost of the Gold route, and it is becoming increasingly clear that there is insufficient funding being made available directly through grants or via Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to support a move to Gold for a majority of publications. While the Green route is proposed as a transitional route to “mop up” publications for which there is no funding, there is clear evidence that short embargo periods, particularly in relation to Humanities and Social Science (HSS) papers, will undermine the subscriptions model upon which the Green route depends. This evidence comes from the citation patterns for such papers, which show that their currency persists over long periods, and from the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) survey of librarians, which indicated that subscription cancellations would take place if short embargo periods were in place. We have heard assertions that short embargo periods do not undermine the subscriptions model but we have not seen evidence for these assertions.
2.3 While current mandates and the decision tree produced by the Publishers Association and endorsed by BIS make allowance for broad differences in subject areas, there does not appear to be any systematic evidence on what would be the ideal embargo period for sustainability. This may be due to the fact that the Green route is regarded as part of the transition to Gold, but most forecasts are for a “mixed economy” for the foreseeable future. Unless there is appropriate evidence-based differentiation in embargo periods, rather than the one-size (or two-sizes) -fits -all, the Green route may simply not be sustainable.
2.4 If there is a steady move to Gold, inevitably there will be a “tipping point” for library subscriptions, undermining the Green route with the ironic result that in the short or, perhaps, long term taxpayers could get fewer publications for their investment.
2.5 Given the lack of any prospect of comprehensive funding in the system (see below) it would seem essential that a healthy Green route is available and sustainable.
2.6 The need for a planned and gradual transition can be illustrated with respect to the group of stakeholders to which we belong. UK learned societies own many journals of international high standing but are poorly equipped to adapt rapidly to different publishing business models. Their journals bring income in to the UK as the majority of their subscriptions are from overseas, particularly the US. This income is spent within the UK to develop science and practice, and to build capacity through support for young researchers. A rush to Gold with no sustainable Green route threatens the viability of these journals and in some cases the learned society which depends largely upon journals income for its work. The Finch Report recognised this risk but the rapid move to implementation and the subsequent Research Councils UK (RCUK) mandate have not taken account of this important group of stakeholders and their contribution to education, training, the promotion of UK scholarship and the reputation of the UK internationally.
3. Rights of use and re-use in relation to open access research publications, including the implications of Creative Commons “CC-BY” licences
3.1 We have serious reservations concerning the use of the CC-BY license and the lack of any control on the use and re-use of publications globally. It is difficult to understand how this can benefit the development of business/innovation in the UK. By using this form of license, the UK taxpayer would appear to be funding global commercial interests.
4. The costs of article processing charges (APCs) and the implications for research funding and for the taxpayer
4.1 From information available at the moment it would appear that there will be a significant shortfall in funding for APCs. Although the RCUK block grant system is being established, some HEIs are maintaining that the estimates of the proportion of publications that will be funded for Gold are overoptimistic. It is likely therefore that, unless there is a very significant increase in research funding, much research will rely on the Green route.
4.2 In addition, without a sustainable Green route supported by subscriptions, early career researchers and independent researchers may have their ability to publish impaired or removed.
4.3 There is already a growing number of Gold open access journals offering publication for relatively modest APCs. These do not provide rigorous peer review and hence do not have to cover the associated operational costs of this and other services such as copy-editing. In addition, existing journals may trade quality for volume in order to maintain income. High quality can be undermined by low APCs, with the result that articles may be available to all, but the additional burden of evaluating research and determining quality will fall upon researchers. Time spent on this task could result in decreased output unless funding rises.
4.4 The highest quality journals are likely to be able to command high APCs and maintain their position. Paying these APCs from block grants will necessitate more output using the Green route to compensate.
4.5 Block funding introduces a decision for universities on the allocation of APC support. This requires additional expenditure on the necessary infrastructure for decision making. Therefore, less of taxpayers’ money will be available to support the research itself or other educational output from HEIs.
4.6 Differentiation by discipline is an issue that arises with respect to funding as well as with embargo period length. Much Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) research falls within the remit of large commercially –funded trusts and 90% of RCUK funds that also goes to these areas. APC funding for HSS research is likely to be much smaller and hence there will be a greater dependency on the Green route.
5. The level of “gold” open access uptake in the rest of the world versus the UK, and the ability of UK higher education institutions to remain competitive
5.1 The UK is ahead of most other countries in its push for Gold open access and it is not clear that Gold will be the majority model globally. For example, versions of the Green route are preferred in the US and Australia.
5.2 The most significant danger of the UK’s decision to go ahead at speed is a restriction of outlets for UK researchers—the highest impact journal for dissemination of a given piece of research may not offer a Gold option or comply with Green OA and CC-BY licensing. There is anecdotal evidence that some US journals are content not to receive UK submissions with the restriction of an OA mandate and have no intention of changing their publication policies.
5.3 If outlets for UK research are restricted, there is the potential for the loss of standing in particular areas. The UK taxpayer could be funding a publication system that reduces the competitiveness of our science and scholarship.
Professor Ann Colley
Chief Executive
6 February 2013