PRESS RELEASE - MPs CONDEMN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS REPORT

From: MCGRANE, Christine <MCGRANEC_at_parliament.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:09:54 +0000

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE OFFICE, HOUSE OF COMMONS

7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA

Tel. Nos. 020 7219 2793-2794 (Fax. No. - 0896) email:
scitechcom_at_parliament.uk

PRESS RELEASE


No. 81 of Session 2003-04

8 November 2004

MPs CONDEMN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS REPORT

MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee have
today, Monday 8 November, asked the Government to "reconsider its
position" on scientific publications after it released an obstructive
Response to a Committee Report released in July this year.

The MPs say that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has clearly
tried to "neutralise" the views put forward by other departments and
Government-funded organisations, in particular the Joint Information
Systems Committee (JISC), an expert advisory body funded indirectly by
the Department for Education and Skills. The MPs said it was "worrying"
both that an expert body had felt constrained in carrying out its
advisory role, and that the Government had ignored JISC's expert advice
on the need for change in the system for publishing research findings.
JISC's very positive response to the Committee Report was watered down
following negotiations with DTI.

The Government Response focuses on criticism of the "author-pays"
publishing model, despite the fact that the Committee's Report did not
recommend its wholesale adoption. Moreover, the Government has
"prejudged" the publishing model, instead of encouraging experimentation
as advocated by the Committee. MPs claim that the Government's position
owes more to the publishing interests supported by DTI than the best
interests of the scientific community or evidence-based policy.

Ian Gibson MP, Chair of the Committee, said: "DTI is apparently more
interested in kowtowing to the powerful publishing lobby than it is in
looking after the best interests of British science. This isn't
evidence-based policy, it's policy-based evidence.

"The DTI are clearly wearing the Government's trousers on this issue and
that's wrong. Not only has it ignored the advice of the body appointed
to advise on this issue, it has actually tried to stop them giving us
this advice directly, just because they support the Committee's
conclusions rather than the DTI view."






Notes to editors:
* Under the terms of Standing Order No. 152 the Science and
Technology Committee is empowered to examine the "expenditure, policy
and administration of the Office of Science and Technology and its
associated public bodies". The Committee was appointed on 12 November
2001.

* The Committee's inquiry into Scientific Publications was
announced on 10 December 2003 in Press Notice 3 of Session 2003-04. The
Committee took evidence from Blackwell Publishing, John Wiley & Sons,
Nature Publishing Group and Reed Elsevier on 1 March 2004; Oxford
University Press, the Institute of Physics Publishing, the Association
of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, BioMed Central, Public
Library of Science and Axiope on 8 March 2004; the British Library, the
Joint Information Systems Committee, Cambridge University Library, the
University of Hertfordshire and a panel of academics on 21 April 2004;
and the Department of Trade and Industry/the Office of Science and
Technology, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and
Research Councils UK on 5 May 2004.

* The Committee published its findings as the Tenth Report of
session 2003-04 Scientific Publications: Free for all? (HC 399), on
Tuesday 20 July 2004.

* This Report is published alongside the Government Response and
responses from the Joint Information Systems Committee, RCUK, the Office
of Fair Trading, the Society of College, National and University
Libraries/the Consortium of University Research Libraries and the
Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access
project.

Membership of the Committee:

Dr Ian Gibson (Lab, Norwich North) (Chairman) Mr Tony McWalter
(Lab, Hemel Hempstead)
Paul Farrelly (Lab, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Dr Andrew Murrison
(Con, Westbury)
Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem, Oxford West & Abingdon) Geraldine Smith
(Lab, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Kate Hoey (Lab, Vauxhall) Bob Spink (Con, Castle Point)
Dr Brian Iddon (Lab, Bolton South East) Dr Desmond Turner
(Lab, Brighton Kemptown)
Mr Robert Key (Con, Salisbury)



  _____

UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted.
This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
  _____
Received on Mon Nov 08 2004 - 11:09:54 GMT