Flipping journals or filling pockets? Publisher manipulation of OA policies | Unlocking Research

peter.suber's bookmarks 2018-10-31


"As was predicted early 2013, by the Chairman of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: “Current UK open access policy risks incentivising publishers to introduce or increase embargo periods”. By September 2013, there was clear evidence this was happening.

Now, in the final year of the RCUK transition period, the situation is far, far worse....

Elsevier, Wiley and more recently Emerald are all examples of publishers that have at some point dictated different conditions for authors following open access mandates, but as of the date of this post do not discriminate authors on the basis of their funding.

This last technique to squeeze every penny out of government funds is possibly the most cynical and puts even more lie to the claims publishers make about the necessity for embargo periods. Either making an author’s accepted manuscript available in a repository causes the cancellation of journal subscriptions or it doesn’t. The funding behind the research described in the paper is irrelevant.

And yet we continue to comply and we continue to pay. The RCUK is morphing into UK Research and Innovation on 1 April 2018. This is the time to take serious stock of the policies that have lined the pockets of big academic publishing companies and change them to achieve the actual end goal which is the dissemination of research. Green over gold people."




From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks


oa.conversions oa.gold oa.policies oa.uk oa.rcuk oa.embargoes oa.fees oa.green oa.funders.public oa.policies.funders oa.repositories oa.journals oa.funders

Date tagged:

10/31/2018, 10:54

Date published:

10/31/2018, 06:54