Re: RCUK policy on open access

From: Tim Gray, Libray Assistant, Homerton College, Cambridge <mtg32_at_CAM.AC.UK>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:43:57 -0400

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:53:21 +0100, Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
wrote:

[...]
>Consider the present logic of the RCUK proposal:
>
> (1) You are *required* to self-archive your RCUK-funded research
> -- except if your institution has no OA Institutional Repository
> (presumably because your institution can't afford one)! In that
> case you may opt out of the RCUK requirement...
>
> (2) You are *encouraged* to publish your RCUK-funded research in an
> OA ("gold") journal (if/when a suitable one exists: 5% of journals
> are OA gold today, whereas 92% are "green" on self-archiving). RCUK
> will help cover with the costs!
>[...]

For institutions without an OA Institutional Repository, could not an
alternative requirement be to self-archive in a central (subject-based)
repository?

Ideally, it would be best if some funding could go towards setting up IRs
and I agree that the introduction of the author-pays method 'muddies the
waters'.

But using a central repository could be a short-term stop-gap to avoid the
'easy opt-out' scenario that seems to present itself in the current proposal.

Incidentally, what percentage of all UK peer-reviewed research is funded by
RCUK? Would this percentage then be the percentage of *all* peer-reviwed UK
research available via OA funded post 1st October 2005 (the proposed start
date)? Is there a large number of other funders of peer-reviewed research -
but not necessarily mandating an OA policy?

Tim Gray, Library Assistant, Homerton College Library, Cambridge.
Received on Thu Jun 30 2005 - 22:43:57 BST