{"id":1573,"date":"2012-05-17T20:46:30","date_gmt":"2012-05-17T20:46:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/?p=1573"},"modified":"2012-05-17T20:50:13","modified_gmt":"2012-05-17T20:50:13","slug":"finch-committee-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2012\/05\/17\/finch-committee-update\/","title":{"rendered":"Finch Committee: Update"},"content":{"rendered":"

I reported before<\/a> on the notes from earlier meetings of the Finch Committee, which was set up by Science Minister David WIlletts to formulate proposals for making publicly-funded research more accessible. The notes of their latest meeting, held on 27th April, are now available<\/a> so I wanted to add an update. I’ve uploaded a highlighted PDF<\/a> for anyone who wants to read all four pages.<\/p>\n

The more recent discussions bring out some of the tensions between the academic and publishing members of the committee. The circulation of a revised draft policy on open access by RCUK was a point of contention. According to the notes, Mark Thorley (RCUK):<\/p>\n

stressed that the draft policy, as it stands, does not constitute a formal RCUK position. Disquiet had been expressed about circulating it widely in anticipation of the conclusions of the Working Group, and it was argued that this had been premature. <\/strong>RCUK stressed that the issuing of the document at this stage was essentially a means of testing out ideas.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He added that there had been much positive feedback. That was certainly the tenor of my submission to RCUK (see here<\/a> for my reaction to the draft proposals).<\/p>\n

Publishers were dismayed with the RCUK’s proposal for a maximum 6 month embargo on scientific papers following the green route to open access:<\/p>\n

Publisher members of the Working Group were unhappy about this, and were perplexed about the rationale specifically for a six-month period<\/strong>, which did not appear to be based on any analysis of the half-life of articles. RCUK\u2019s view, however, was that the six-month span had been suggested because it was deemed right and appropriate<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It looks like RCUK wants to stick to its guns. To facilitate this, the organisation seems to be moving to a more flexible position on payment of author processing charges (APCs) \u2014 the so-called gold open access route which provides immediate availability:<\/p>\n

Mark Thorley reported on the new RCUK position on meeting costs of APCs. Under this, researchers would be allowed to include APCs in directly-incurred costs for research grants; the payments could be placed in an institution\u2019s publication fund. Research Councils would show flexibility when matching payments to publications.<\/strong> This stance was welcomed by all around the table.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’m not certain yet whether this proposal quite matches the Wellcome Trust’s easy mechanism but it looks to be a move in the right direction.<\/p>\n

There was also tension over text-mining:<\/p>\n

Publishers were also apprehensive about the proposals relating to text mining.<\/strong> RCUK\u2019s view is that it wishes to see all research outputs from its funding placed in the public domain, and feels that the suggested approach to text mining addresses this need.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again – good to see RCUK holding its ground.<\/p>\n

The discussion then moved on to look at cost implications. There are some details given but the analysis remains to be completed. Nevertheless, at the time of the meeting, the committee agreed the following principles as it now moves to finalise its report:<\/p>\n

\n