John Houghton and Alma Swan, Planting the green seeds for a golden harvest: Comments and clarifications on “Going for Gold”

peter.suber's bookmarks 2012-11-23

Summary:

Abstract:  The economic modelling work we have carried out over the past few years has been referred to and cited a number of times in the discussions of the Finch report and subsequent policy developments in the UK. We are concerned that there may be some misinterpretation of this work.  This short paper sets out the main conclusions of our work, which was designed to explore the overall costs and benefits of Open Access (OA), as  well as identify the most cost-effective policy basis for transitioning to OA at national and institutional levels.  The main findings are that disseminating research results via OA would be more cost-effective than subscription publishing. If OA were adopted worldwide, the net benefits of Gold OA would exceed those of Green OA. However, we are not in an OA world, nor are we likely to be in such a world in the foreseeable future.  At the institutional level, during a transitional period when subscriptions are maintained, the cost of unilaterally adopting Green OA is much lower than the cost of Gold OA – with Green OA self-archiving costing average institutions sampled around one-fifth the amount that Gold OA might cost, and as little as one-tenth as much for the most research intensive university. Hence, we conclude that the most affordable and cost-effective means of moving towards OA is through Green OA, which can be adopted unilaterally at the funder, institutional, sectoral and national levels at relatively little cost.  

Link:

http://www.cfses.com/projects/Going%20for%20Gold%20-%20Comment%20and%20Clarification%20%28Houghton%20and%20Swan%29.pdf

From feeds:

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

Tags:

oa.new oa.gold oa.green oa.uk oa.costs oa.benefits oa.finch_report oa.economics_of oa.repositories oa.journals

Date tagged:

11/23/2012, 11:22

Date published:

11/23/2012, 06:22