Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the European Group for Organization Studies
1. Executive Summary
1.1 EGOS supports the overall aim of opening up access to the results of academic research to the wider community.
1.2 However, EGOS argues that current policies (namely the Gold and Green routes) are being rushed through without sufficient discussion and without considering what changes need to be undertaken and with almost no consideration of the effects of implementing Open Access, especially for Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS).
1.3 There appears to be almost no consideration of the impact on Universities, research and publication in all Social Science subjects, where opening access could have unintended negative consequences in comparison to Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine (STEM) subjects.
1.4 There appears to be no concerns given to the role of learned societies which are central to the development and growth of Social Science and Humanities subjects through their various (international) activities.
2. The Submitters and Factual Information
2.1 The European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) is a learned society comprising 2000 members, the vast majority of whom are academics who come from the majority of disciplines in Social Sciences and the Humanities (primarily Business Studies, Organization Theory, Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, Law and History).
2.2 Nearly 30% of the membership is from the UK with the rest of the membership spread over virtually all the European countries, Australasia and the US/Canada. EGOS is the one of the largest and most active learned society in the world in its fields of study.
2.3 EGOS runs its own peer reviewed international journal “Organization Studies” which is a top rated scholarly journal; a member of the select Financial Times listing of journals and is published by Sage, one of the top academic publishers worldwide.
3. Recommendations for Action
3.1 The Government appears to have accepted the recommendations of the Finch Group Report (“Accessibility…..”) and has given priority to the Gold route without full consideration of the effects such implementation will have and what substantial changes would need to be made as a result of its implementation to scholarship, Universities, funding and international relations in academe.
Under current proposals limited funds are being made available to Universities to pay the costs of APCs (Article Processing Charges).
We suggest that this funding is totally inadequate to support the current and future levels of publication and propose a re-think over a longer time period to satisfy all stakeholders that adequate funding is in place to cover the cost (without academics having to engage in competitive bidding processes in their own institutions).
Further, we would ask the Government to reconsider its total acceptance of the Finch report and also take more time to consider the ramifications of its implementation.
3.2 Rights of Use and Re-Use
3.2.1 The Creative Commons License (CC -BY) enables/encourages distribution, re-use and remixing of any published materials by any agency (so long as the authors are cited). Whilst this looks unproblematic, it also raises the likely possibility that original scholarly research becomes modified or taken out of context to suit commercial/media purposes, but still cites the original authors.
3.2.2 Given the above, we would suggest CC-BY should be abandoned (not least because authors may be associated with something they did not say or conclude from their research). CC-BY also raises questions over intellectual property rights which do not seem to have been taken account of in the current debate.
3.2.3 There seems to be a UK-centric approach which does not fit well with the highly international world of most academics. What should academics in the UK do when they are faced with trying to publish in non-UK journals and other outlets when those countries will have different (or no) OA procedures and policies? For example, many of our community publish in the top US journals (which are at the apex of quality in HSS)—but this is a country where there is, currently, no OA policy. The same applies to many continental European countries which are not OA compliant.
3.2.4 Overseas scholars wanting to publish in UK based journals (such as “Organization Studies”) will encounter difficulties because they will not have funds for APCs. This would imply that a parallel publishing model would have to be used alongside OA, whereby a substantial embargo period enables UK journals to go about their international role. At a conservative estimate, this would affect over 50 highly rated UK journals (and considerably more if middle ranking journals are taken into account).
We recommend that these questions are fully addressed and answered and we would advocate the adoption of Creative Commons Non-Commercial, Non-Derivative License(CC-BY-NC-ND) which would preclude the reuse, editing and commercial exploitation of published material.
We further recommend that a full investigation is carried out to ascertain the extent to which Gold OA is operable in other countries in the world so that UK research remains competitive.
3.3 Financial Implications and Costs:
3.3.1 The bulk of published research in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) does not emanate from RCUK funded research grants. The majority of individual scholars will have to find funds to publish their work and this is unlikely to be fully covered by their institutions. Consideration needs to be given to how institutions will fund APCs and, in any transition period, how funding will be made available from QR grants to all institutions (not just the 30 research intensive Universities). In most Universities, scholars will find it harder rather than easier, to publish their work because of financial constraints (their own or imposed by their institution).
3.3.2 Universities will have to create and implement decision criteria over who is published, in which journals. Scarce resources (many Universities will receive little or no extra funding) mean that some areas of scholarship and some journals are favoured over others (to the detriment of the disciplines). What gets published and by whom will suffer. This is also a breach of academic freedom, because it will force scholars into an internal competition for funds. There is also the question of who is qualified in Universities to make such decisions and on what criteria.
3.3.3 Early career researchers, Doctoral and Postdoctoral students and Emeriti staff are likely to find it difficult to obtain funding to publish and this will exclude research active retired staff and hinder the academic development of the younger generation of scholars.
4. Conclusion
4.1 Further consultation is needed both with Learned Societies, Publishers and Universities. Rather than rush through a Gold OA model (and perhaps regret it later) more time needs to be taken to consider the above points (and more).
4.2 There is no singe catch-all OA approach which will work easily for both the HSS and STEM, and across Europe and beyond. Therefore, further consultation should consider the different needs of academic communities and diverse academic traditions, and adapt the OA criteria accordingly.
4.3 OA needs to be considered alongside the REF, Research Council and QR funding mechanisms and it is highly likely that significant changes will follow the 2014 REF (which will have implications for what is considered to be publically funded research).
4.4 OA encourages the use (by some) of original research for commercial purposes. These could include possible exploitation of original work for the benefit of specific agencies directly, or indirectly where for-profit providers of degree programmes have full access to original research which they can edit and alter at will to suit their commercial ends.
4 February 2013