Finch Group defends open-access evidence base | News | Times Higher Education

"The Finch Group has hit back at claims that its preference for gold over green open access was based on flawed evidence. The coalition-convened group, chaired by Dame Janet Finch, former vice-chancellor of the University of Keele, and containing representatives from publishers, learned societies, universities and funders, was responsible for the June 2012 report on which the UK’s open-access policy is based. The report’s statement that a 'clear policy direction' should be set in support of journal-provided gold open access was taken up by Research Councils UK, whose initial open-access mandate, unveiled in July 2012, was widely interpreted as requiring researchers to choose gold wherever possible. Universities objected that this would be too expensive, given the article fees charged by journals, and the Finch Group’s review of progress in implementing its recommendations, published on 18 November, notes that many have adopted an explicit preference for repository-based green open access. The review makes it clear, in line with more recent RCUK pronouncements, that this is permissible during the indefinite transition period to full gold open access. It also endorses a 'decision tree' produced by the Publishers Association that appears to suggest that whenever gold options are offered and funding is available, researchers must opt for it. But Adam Tickell, Finch Group member and provost and vice-principal at the University of Birmingham, denied there was 'much of a dissonance' in the report. 'Everyone is happy with [RCUK-] funded gold and the publishers are happy with green with embargoes that don’t undermine their sustainability. As such, the review codifies the agreements [regarding RCUK policy] that were reached in the spring,' he said. The review also mounts a robust defence of the original Finch report ..."