Meeting report: The implications of the UK Government’s Open Access policy on the quality of academic publications

Use the link to access the full text of the meeting notes from the Canberra Society of Editors (CSE). An excerpt from the notes reads as follows: “... Purpose of meeting... To gather information and opinions about the implications of the Open Access policy on editorial quality; it is not to provide answers... Background ... The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has held a series of meetings on the implications of Open Access. It missed an important opportunity to present a case for acknowledging the value of editorial quality to the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. The NUJ feels strongly that the added value of quality editorial work—which includes editing, assessing manuscripts, handling peer review, copy editing, layout and design, and web production—must not be left out of the debate about improving access to academic publishing or specialist information available in the public domain. There is a concern that the academic community and the public at large will be ill-served if journal and book publishers with a history of producing properly checked, well edited and clearly designed publications suffer as Open Access develops... Discussion ... Major issues are: [1] How can open access models ensure that funding for the editorial process is included to ensure that published articles and books are accurate, complete and convey the authors’ meaning in a way that will be easily understood by a diverse readership? [2] Who will pay for this funding? [3] Who can the NUJ, Unite and SfEP talk to about their concerns? [4] What exactly is publicly funded research? (Universities charges fees and receive donations and well as government funding. It is a funding mix in reality.) [5] Since there have been major redundancies in the publishing industry over the years and editorial work increasingly outsourced, how will new editors be trained? [6] How can ‘the massive clash’ between academics and publishers over the last 10 years be resolved? [7] How can the perception of editors as a cost be changed to that of a value? [8] What should editors be saying, and who should they be saying it to? The funders for guidelines? The universities? (They have enormous power over where their people publish.) [9] What is going to happen to the subscription model? [10] Where do you set the price? Who pays the price? (Authors? Publishers? Users?) [11] What is actually driving the move to open access? (It does not just affect Science, Technology and Medicine publishing, as previously thought.) ...”