Open access update: A More Nuanced Approach? | The Political Studies Association (PSA)

"Since the acceptance of the Finch Report by the former Universities Minister David Willetts and the scramble to implement a homogenous Open Access (OA) policy - the road to Gold- by RCUK and (initially) HEFCE, a more nuanced approach has developed. As noted in a blog on this issue last year, with Gold Open Access, an author is required to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) to their publisher – usually in the region of £1800. The alternative – Green Open Access would mean that things were changed less radically, but with a reduced embargo period before an article is available to all through open access.  As the President of the Royal Historical Society, Peter Mandler, (2014) has observed, the difference in approach and procedure between STEM and HSS scholars is such that there needs to be recognition of this by funding bodies in the UK and elsewhere. Some of the concerns about the dash for Gold OA are that it favours the wealthy and gives publishing decisions to managers, something clearly observed in the preparations for the current REF. It is also a pay-cut for HSS academics who for the most part do not have access to the publishing funding that comes with many STEM projects and have to fund themselves in a variety of different ways. Paying for Gold from their own salaries would be an invidious consequence of this. HEFCE have recognised these concerns and in their recent consultation exercise listened to the anxieties of HSS learned societies and academics. As a result they are ‘colour blind’ in terms of publications for the next REF, giving equal weight to Gold and Green and have allowed a series of exemptions for institutions. They have also allowed embargo periods of up to 24 months for REF panels C and D (HSS). RCUK and Horizon 2020 remain wedded to a less flexible approach, with a shorter embargo period and a more ideological commitment to OA. Though RCUK have committed themselves to periodic review of the policy and it is to be trusted that these reviews will be based on evidence measured against a transparent set of objectively desired outcomes, and not on ideological prejudice. The working through of a more realistic and nuanced OA policy is important to learned societies that own and distribute quality academic journals. Ironically the push for Gold threated the continued existence of aspects of quality control from the very journals that publish the articles measured in the REF. A system that financially rewards high article throughput (Gold) over peer-reviewed pieces is difficult to reconcile with continued high quality publishing; though we accept here many ardent OA advocates dispute this. As the PSA sets out its call for tender inviting publishers to bid to publish the Association’s journals for the next few years, it has been made clear that a Gold OA element as well as Green must be available and that the successful bidder must be at least REF compliant and flexible in terms of how the market and funders’ policies develop. These are not easy goals to reconcile with more traditional approaches and the need to maintain high quality. As Mandler points out, the UK operates in a global academic setting and in other parts of the world “many international journals in the humanities will not feel bound by UK mandates to set embargoes that will endanger moderate levels of subscription income.” In the US some will not offer an author pays option on principle, it is too reminiscent of vanity publishing. It seems myopic to adopt too harsh a policy that would effectively ban UK authors from these journals ..."