Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the University of Hertfordshire

Executive Summary

The University welcomes the Government’s commitment to driving forward changed business models for scholarly dissemination in the modern digital world and believes this is vital for improving the current inadequate levels of access to research outputs to sustain research of the highest calibre and maximise the benefits for all of investment in research.

The University urges the Inquiry to take account of 5 specific practical considerations:

1. The promotion of “gold” open access must not undermine the continuing importance of “green” open access.

2. Embargo periods should be minimised and phased out.

3. The transition to a “gold” model with APCs needs to be funded.

4. Common, easily understood and widely recognised licensing arrangements are required.

5. The publication criteria for assessing research excellence need to be reformed.

Submission

(i)The University of Hertfordshire (UH) conducts world leading research across a number of disciplines, including Astronomy, Physics, Computer Science, Social Robotics, History, Nursing and Midwifery, Engineering, English, and Art and Design. External funding for research projects comes from a range of different funders, such as the Research Councils, the National Institute for Health Research and the European Union. The University was ranked 58 out of 163 UK Higher Education institutions, the highest of all post-1992 universities, as a result of the Research Assessment Exercise 2008. Over 85% of the University’s submitted research was judged to be of international quality in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

(ii)In promoting our research and disseminating its wider benefits and impact, the University is committed to making our research outputs publicly available, including through international subject repositories (such as arXiv—http://uk.arxiv.org/ ) and our own extensive institutional Research Archive repository (https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/). The University has mandated deposition in the UH Research Archive and to date this is populated with over 8,000 research publications freely available worldwide.

(iii)The University welcomes the Government’s commitment to driving forward changed business models for scholarly dissemination in the modern digital world and believes this is vital to improve the current inadequate levels of access to research outputs (as provided by the existing academic publishing model) to sustain research of the highest calibre and maximise the benefits for all of investment in research.

(iv)We would urge the Inquiry to consider and address the following five specific key points:

1. Promotion of “gold” open access must not undermine the continuing importance of “green” open access

1.1 The main principle of open access of expanding access to research outputs could be severely compromised if the debate becomes solely one of “gold” or “green” rather than support for the growth of multiple models. A single model will not deliver the improved access required given the diverse range and types of research outputs across subject disciplines, which includes not only journal articles but also books, audio visual materials, datasets and inter-active media.

1.2 Similarly, the advances already achieved in expanding access and collaboration through new models of practice in some discipline areas must not be undermined by a new focus on a single “gold” model. For example Physicists at Hertfordshire are particularly concerned about potential impact of the current emphasis on “gold” to the continued success of their established international “green” open access through arXiv.

2. Embargo periods should be minimised and phased out

2.1 We would further suggest that not only would any extension or increase in embargo periods for “green” open access be totally counter-productive for expanding open access but also that embargo periods become irrelevant in the context of a “gold” model. Publishers currently specify embargo periods to protect continued demand and their journal subscription income from those who need access to the most recent research. In the “gold” model, article processing charges (APCs) provide the publisher’s income rather than customer subscription payments, and the published open access journal becomes freely available, so this market protection ceases to be relevant.

3. The transition to a “gold” model with APCs needs to be funded

3.1 During any transition from the current academic publishing model to a “gold” model, APCs will need to be funded in advance of any institutional benefit from any commensurate reduction in journal subscription charges. Indeed the time lag could be considerable. Hertfordshire is already having to try and fund increasing numbers of APCs as the market reacts to the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report. But there is no rationale at present for any correlation between increasing APC costs and reducing journal subscription costs for university libraries. The choice of publication vehicle relates to the nature of the research carried out, the type of output and the dissemination sought, whereas university journal collections are determined by needs of the institution’s whole range of work, not just its research activities.

3.2 An initial comparison at Hertfordshire shows that for a sample of 1223 journal articles published from across all our research disciplines in 2010 & 2011, 789 (64%) were published in 590 different journal titles subscribed to by the university library and 434 in journals not held in the university library. The 590 journal titles represent 2% of the total number of journals held by the library. The university budget for journal subscriptions is currently approx £1.6 million per annum. So for example if the university were to need to fund 500 APCs pa @ the current average of £1,500 each (a total of £750,000 per annum), then to break even the cost of journal subscriptions to the university would need to reduce by just over 50%.

3.3 This correlation is highly unlikely to happen in the short to medium term or in a pattern that allows year on year “balancing of the books”. Elsevier, for example, have made it clear that in their global market context, UK APCs would represent only a very small percentage and therefore have very little impact on the subscription model and prices that would continue to apply globally including for UK access to the rest of the world’s output.

4. Common easily understood and widely recognised licensing arrangements are required that take account of the wide variety of different types of research output

4.1 We note that the Committee intends to consider “rights of use and re-use to open access research publications, including the implications of Creative Commons “CC-BY” licences. We would support the use of the Creative Commons licensing model in principle as this would provide an internationally established and recognised basis for licensing IP for publication under both “gold” and “green” open access routes.

4.2 However, we would strongly recommend that the Committee also recognises the need for use of different CC-BY versions for different types of research output. For example for an animation or film CC BY-NC-ND may be most appropriate if the integrity of the whole is paramount; whereas CC BY-NC-SA may be more appropriate for a set of photographic images that could form the basis for remixing and building on by others to create a new or enhanced work for sharing under the same licence terms.

4.3 Where application of a Creative Commons licence may not be appropriate, such as for materials that are commercially sensitive or contain confidential information, then we would propose that a UK version of the Australian Governments Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL)—Restrictive Licence should be developed, perhaps as an extension of the current Open Government Licence.

5. The publication criteria for assessing research excellence need to be reformed

5.1 Finally, we would urge the Inquiry to consider the need to review and reform measures and values for assessing research excellence that are predicated on the existing academic publishing model as a result of the Government’s Open Access Policy. This should include reviewing and updating the criteria relating to publication in high impact journals.

6 February 2013