Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
34. The lack of clarity in RCUK policy and guidance,
and the consequent confusion, especially given the imminent start
date of 1 April 2013, are unacceptable (paragraph 14).
35. We welcome RCUK's clarification of its stance
on the length of embargo periods in evidence to us, and its willingness
to be flexible about the implementation of open access. We recommend
that RCUK revise section six (implementation and compliance) of
its policy guidance notes to include reference to the "five-year
implementation phase" and state explicitly that it will take
an incremental approach to compliance in this period. Furthermore,
the guidance must make reference to the Publishers Association
decision tree in order to dispel the widespread confusion about
embargo periods (paragraph 16). (Recommendation 1)
36. We recommend that RCUK gather evidence about
the suitability of the creative commons attribution (CC-BY) licence
for different disciplines (paragraph 18). (Recommendation 2)
37. We commend RCUK's commitment to monitor international
developments in open access—for example, whether gold is
adopted by other countries—and willingness to amend its
strategy accordingly. The Government must co-ordinate with other
countries on open access policies (paragraph 20). (Recommendation
3)
38. Whilst we would not wish to recommend that
the Government should distort the market in this area, we urge
the Government to consider how they can support learned societies
in this transition. We are pleased that Mr Willetts is meeting
representatives from learned societies for this very purpose (paragraph
28). (Recommendation 4)
39. It is vital that RCUK closely monitors implementation
of the Finch Group recommendations to ensure that the move to
open access does not damage the UK's international reputation
for scholarship—both for outstanding research and globally
respected journals. As a minimum, the RCUK review of open access
must consider the following:
(1) whether different disciplines require different
embargo periods, licences and primary models of publication, particularly
in the light of evidence gathered about readership and citation
half-lives;
(2) whether the UK, in stating a preference for
gold open access, is moving in the same direction as other countries
which are mandating open access (but not necessarily gold open
access);
(3) whether article processing charges have adversely
affected the number of international articles published in UK
journals;
(4) effects on the quality of peer review;
(5) impact on the number of collaborations by
UK researchers; and
(6) effects on learned societies.
RCUK must remain vigilant beyond the planned 2014
review. We recommend that it commit, as a minimum, to a further
review of the implications of its open access policy in 2016 and
an end-stage assessment in 2018 (paragraph 29). (Recommendation
5)
40. We recommend that the Government undertake
a full cost-benefit analysis of the open access policy, particularly
given the current economic climate and the consequent pressures
on the public purse. This analysis must be updated to reflect
actual rather than projected costs during the transition period
(paragraph 30). (Recommendation 6)
41. In the light of the significant confusion
and perceptions that RCUK, at worst, "acted unilaterally",
or, at least, consulted inadequately in devising its open access
policy, we recommend that BIS undertake a review of how RCUK consulted
over this significant change in policy with the scientific and
publishing communities, to ensure that lessons are learnt (paragraph
33). (Recommendation 7)
| 
