Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations

1. Introduction

1.1. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR) is a nationally and internationally recognised independent social science research, consultancy and training organisation. It was established in 1947 as a company limited by guarantee and has charitable status. Its founding and continuing purpose is to apply social sciences to contemporary social problems. Income is derived from its own resources, research grants and contracts for specific research, consultancy, professional development and publishing activities including revenue from international journals Human Relations and Evaluation.

1.2. Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. It is owned by the TIHR and published under contract by SAGE. Human Relations is among the oldest of UK social science journals (established 1947), has a very wide international reach (three-quarters of its submissions come from outside the UK), and the revenue it generates helps to support the activities of the TIHR.

1.3. The TIHR welcomed the Finch Group Report’s emphasis on accessibility, sustainability, excellence in a transition to OA. The Finch Group Report and written statements from RCUK and HEFCE leave, however, numerous questions about implementation unanswered and the short timescale for transition to OA risks unintended negative consequences. A move to OA in line with statements from the RCUK and HEFCE could undermine the viability of Human Relations and many of the TIHR’s activities (see below). We are also aware of concerns raised by researchers (potential Human Relations authors) regarding how the transition to OA might impact on their freedom to choose what research they submit for publication and to which journal, as well as their ability to develop their publication record for career progress and to safeguard their intellectual property rights.

2. The Gold OA model—Article Publication Charge (APC) and CC-BY licence

2.1. Under the Gold model, the “version of record” (publisher’s copy edited version) of the research article becomes freely accessible online upon publication by the journal. Publication under a CC-BY (attribution) licence means terms and conditions concerning reuse and remixing are minimal as long as the author is acknowledged. Article Publication Charges (APCs) are often levied by publishers for Gold OA articles.

2.2. While the Gold OA model works well for many STEM disciplines, it is less viable for a social sciences journal such as Human Relations—one size does not fit all. Rejection rates are often far higher for HSS than STEM journals (eg 90% versus 10%). Overheads per published article are also higher, owing to the number of articles reviewed but rejected and longer page extents per published article. This suggests that APCs need to be higher for HSS than STEM articles and funding adjusted accordingly.

2.3. The TIHR was pleased to see the Finch Group Report recommendations concerning journal sustainability. Many pure Gold OA journals are underpinned financially by established subscription-based journals from the same publisher. Where organizations such as the TIHR own a single HSS journal, the Gold OA business model may render the journal economically unviable, resulting in an economic and reputational loss to the UK.

2.4. We are aware of author concerns about limited availability of APC funding. Research funding levels are higher for STEM than HSS and can help support APC costs; HSS researchers often receive no direct funding; funding is already limited without it also having to stretch to APCs. The RCUK’s block grant to universities to help fund the transition to OA is not enough to cover APCs for the current publication output. There is concern about what will happen when the demand for APCs outstrips the funds available; if this leads to fewer articles being published, how does this help support UK research accessibility and excellence?

2.5. Researchers are concerned about how APC funding will be allocated and academic freedom preserved. STEM researchers are accustomed to responding to funder needs; social science researchers less so and questions of rationing and academic freedom arise. How will the mechanics for allocating APC funding work within individual universities? Allocation of the RCUK block grants do far mostly seems to be on a ‘first come first served’ basis, giving rise to concerns about fairness and transparency once the limited funds run out. It is important that the risk of distortions in allocations and favouring some disciplines against others be avoided.

2.6. Currently editors and peer reviewers from within the field decide which research is published. Under the Gold model, the ability to publish could be determined by university managers instead. What will be the impact on the relationship be between an individual researcher and his or her university? Will departments pre-review their staff’s work before it is submitted to journals, in order to ensure “best use” of funds for APCs? Will departments limit the number of publications per year, or per REF cycle to cap costs? Who will decide between green and gold options?

2.7. While universities might ring-fence APC funding for early-careers researchers in order to protect recruitment, what about access to APC funding for mid-career researchers? How will retired academics, non-affiliated researchers and independent scholars fund APCs?

2.8. What happens if the best journal for a UK scholar to publish in is a non-UK journal that does not offer OA? Will US journals choose to offer Gold OA or simply forego UK authors? What about multi-authored papers with an international array of contributors, only some of which are bound by OA mandates? Would non-mandated researchers be deterred from collaborating with UK authors, in case it is detrimental to publication in a (non-OA) preferred outlet? How will academic freedom and freedom of choice be preserved? Will authors seek secondary affiliation outside the UK to enable them to submit which papers they like to the journals of their choice?

2.9. Publishing integrity standards need to be maintained in the face of Gold AO. There is a possibility that some journals might feel under pressure to accept more submissions and move to post-publication peer review in order to increase APC income, reduce operating costs and stay viable. While peer review is not perfect it plays an essential role in ensuring the correctness and readability of papers. If acceptance rates are increased to secure more APC income where would this leave academic standards and validity of current journal rankings?

2.10. The Creative Commons CC-BY licence (attribution) allows any reuse/remix, including for commercial purposes. For HSS researchers the interpretation of their data and the context in which extracts of their work is used are both important—many authors will want to retain the need to gain permission to cite research to avoid being misinterpreted or taken out of context, and also to protect any royalty income.

3. The Green OA Model—Embargo Period

3.1. Under the Green OA model, the version that was accepted for publication (post peer review; pre copy editing) may be deposited by the author in an open institutional or subject repository, subject to a specified embargo period, which depends on the publisher’s and research funder’s policies. The ‘version of record’ published by the journal remains behind a journal paywall.

3.2. If the mandated embargo period is too short, libraries will be willing to wait for the post-embargo OA version, and cancel subscriptions. If this occurs, journals, and often the societies which are reliant on the income from subscriptions, will cease to be viable.

3.3. Viable embargo periods depend on the journal half-life, which represents the number of years of publication (back from the current year) which account for 50% of references to each title. This represents a journal’s continued utility in front-rank research and is generally much longer in HSS than STEM disciplines. In many STEM subjects researchers seldom refer back to articles published 12, even six months ago; in HSS it is more likely that old volumes are still used and quoted on a regular basis. The RCUK set the embargo at a maximum of six months, or 12 months for ESRC and AHRC funded research (with a view to reducing this to six months too, over time). The 2012 ALPSP survey1 of libraries suggested that a 6 months embargo period is likely to result in wholesale cancellations of Arts and HSS journals. Research by the Publishing Consortium (May 2012) suggests that 12 months is a minimum to protect library subscriptions. Editors of 21 UK history journals have opted for a 36 months embargo, while French language HSS journals on the Cairn Info platform have opted for an average embargo of 3.7 years.2

3.4. Academics want their work to appear in a journal rather than a university repository, hence low rates of author deposits in repositories to date, as evidenced by the PEER Project.3 Publishing papers in research journals is the main way of achieving professional recognition. Institutional repositories have relatively poorly-developed international infrastructure—giving rise to issues about article discoverability, linking and a longer term archive. While infrastructure could be developed, this rather reinvents, at great cost, the existing infrastructure provided by publishers.

4. TIHR Activities that could be Negatively Impacted by too Fast a Transition to OA

4.1. Too fast a transition to a “one size fits all” model for OA without allowing for adequate consideration of the different needs of different disciplines risks the viability of journals like Human Relations and activities of the TIHR.

4.2. We outline below examples of how the TIHR seeks to maximize the wider impact, value and knowledge generated by its work in the UK, Europe and further afield. Many of these activities, we believe, will be negatively impacted by the proposed rapid transition to OA publishing models required by UK funding bodies.

Helping organisations to develop a better evidence base and offer better value for money

4.3. TIHR’s work during changing economic, political and social conditions is in addressing the growing need for organisations to ensure that their activities and programmes are well targeted to address the needs of their communities, have an impact on their clients, service users or the wider public and offer good value for money. Just two examples include:

TIHR evaluation of Local Authority Preventing Violent Extremism programmes informed development of next steps and targeted projects to help fulfill programme goals.

TIHR recommendations on improving the quality of an early draft of measurement indicators for the European Social Fund in the next programming period were taken on board by the European Commission resulting in a greater coherence with what is being monitored within the ESF and the European employment strategy.

Supporting innovation and change

4.4. TIHR is constantly reassessing whether current research and evaluation methods are fit for purpose in the changing economic, political and social conditions. Our current work for the Big Lottery’s Realising Ambition programme has identified the need to develop more robust methodological approaches to understand what works when replicating or scaling up social interventions.

TIHR is committed to helping organizations appreciate the value of new technologies and innovation in learning. We achieve this by developing new methodological approaches through, for example, our foresight studies and research on the emergence of Digital Social Innovation. Our work at the European level and as a member of Menon research network focuses on new technologies and innovation in learning.

Applying our knowledge and developing capacity further afield

4.5. TIHR research, evaluation and consultancy projects aim to support people and organisations in finding answers to pressing practical and policy questions. In conjunction with this work, our portfolio of professional development programmes and courses (we provide bursaries to many of our students) specifically designed to share learning — both practical and conceptual — with others who want to expand their own capacities and effect change within their organisations and further afield. The TIHR here finds itself engaged in knowledge export beyond the UK, effective in building the brand and reputation of its work and journals and which returns business to the UK.

4.6. Our current international programme of work includes:

Research and consultancy around labour relations in China.

Developing new social welfare models and practice through education in Lithuania.

Becoming the incubator, evaluator and replication specialist for a parenting programme: Families and Schools Together: an evidence based parenting programme, which brings the latest systems, family therapy and neurological research to an intervention that is designed to improve social capital and thereon the welfare and wellbeing of the child.

Educational programmes of work in sub-Saharan Africa and the Amazonas, Peru.

4.7. TIHR sees new knowledge creation and its transfer as integral to its work. TIHR researchers and consultants are active contributors and content advisors across a wide range of knowledge areas—from the UK and European Evaluation Societies to the International Society for Psychoanalytical Study of Organisations (ISPSO) and the British Library’s Management and Business Studies portal, which brings unique and specialist content to the business management community.

5. Recommendations

5.1. Extend the period for transition to allow non-STEM disciplines enough time to implement OA without sacrificing accessibility, sustainability, and excellence.

5.2. Allow HSS journals to offer authors alternatives to the CC-BY licence.

5.3. If Gold OA is to be mandated for HSS articles, acknowledge that Article Publication Costs (APCs) need to be set high enough to reflect higher publishing overheads than for STEM journals.

5.4. Give due consideration to an appropriate embargo period for Green OA for HSS journals, especially if lack of APC funding means HSS articles will mostly be published Green OA and subscription revenues remain vital to journal viability.

7 February 2013