- The Finch Report (Expanding access to research publications: Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings) is also getting a lot of discussion. This is a British government-funded project which explores sustainable strategies that could effectively expand access to published scientific research. I admit I have only read the executive summary and various comments; I haven't read the full report. Much criticism has focused on its proposal that higher education (in the UK) find ways to fund author processing fees for open access publishing in traditional (hybrid) journals, that is to support "gold" instead of "green" open access. Here are two links:
--Openness costs, Nature editorial, Nature 486:439 (28 June 2012) doi:10.1038/486439a
--Finch Report: the question of costs, blog post by Steven Curry
--Google "Finch Report" to access much more of the discussion.
I don't think we are near any consensus on this issue yet in the US or at WUSTL. At WU, the Libraries spend some collection dollars to offer a few subsidies for article processing fees, but we do not have a general fund for this purpose, such as some Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) institutions are developing. Most COPE institutions only fund authors who lack grant funding so that wouldn't generally help most biology dept. authors anyway. What do you think?
- Funders are starting to get tough, at least in the UK: Wellcome Trust will penalise scientists who don't embrace open access, from The Guardian
- Finally The inevitability of open access is a nice summary blog post this month from Stuart Shieber at Harvard University.