Open and Shut?: Danny Kingsley on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?

Use the link to access the interview introduced as follows: " ... But it is the controversial OA Policy introduced on April 1st by Research Councils UK (RCUK) that has attracted the greatest attention (and opprobrium) within the OA movement, not least because of its stipulation that researchers favour Gold over Green OA, and its endorsement of Hybrid OA. But how does the picture look outside the US and Europe? I hope we can explore this in some of the Q&As in this series. Today, Danny Kingsley provides a perspective from Australia. Prior to taking on her role at AOASG, Kingsley spent five years studying the OA situation in Australia for her PhD, and then four years as a repository manager at the Australian National University (ANU), so she has a keen understanding of the OA scene in Australia. On the positive side, says Kingsley, the flood of international statements about OA we have seen this year (e.g. here) has strengthened the voice of those advocating for OA. And Australia is well placed to benefit from this: All of its universities now have an institutional repository, and both the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have introduced OA mandates that favour Green OA. On the negative side, says Kingsley, researchers' lack of engagement with Open Access remains 'a continual disappointment.'  As a result, she suggests, OA advocates need 'to stop talking to ourselves and work out the best way to engage the researchers.' Unfortunately, however, this task has been made that much harder by the recommendations of the Finch Report (on which the controversial RCUK Policy was based), and the consequent decision by RCUK to favour Gold OA, and endorse Hybrid OA. Indeed, Kingsley’s account suggests that, rather than being a tipping point for OA, the RCUK Policy has impeded progress, not just in the UK but globally. 'The Finch/RCUK decision to back and fund Gold Open Access including Hybrid has had ramifications around the world with publishers tightening the deposit and embargo rules for repositories,' she says. 'While this is ostensibly to encourage UK researchers to take the Gold OA option to comply with their rules it affects everyone.' Moreover, adds Kingsley, 'Hybrid is tainting Open Access because researchers often think this is what Open Access means and are (understandably) upset and angry about the changes they feel are being forced upon them.' Whether the impact of Finch/RCUK is being felt in the same way elsewhere, including in the developing world, will perhaps become clearer in future interviews. As Kingsley acknowledges, 'Australia still aligns itself mostly with Europe and North America'. It is worth noting, however, that Kingsley views OA in a broader context than some. She suggests, for instance, that it be seen as a component part of a larger revolution that the research process needs to undergo. For instance she says, changing the reward system, 'such as including Open Access as something that counts for assessment exercises, will be a definitive incentive to change behaviour.' However she adds, 'the real game changer' (and which would encourage take-up of OA) would be to overhaul the reward system used to incentivise researchers. 'The publishers have been able to maintain the status quo because the reward system backs the outdated and inappropriate Journal Impact Factor as a measure of quality.' She adds, 'We need to instead value & reward article level metrics. A focus on these rather than the journal not only makes it more difficult to game (as there are multiple factors) but it also means there will be a push away from the journal as a measure of value. That’s when we can really start looking at revolutionising the scholarly communication system.' To get the full picture on how Kingsley views the current state of OA, what she thinks still needs to be done, and where she believes the priorities should lie, please read the Q&A below."