University of Bristol

Mike Taylor

I know [I've written about this
before](http://svpow.com/2013/02/22/the-progressive-erosion-of-the-rcuk-open-access-policy/ "The progressive erosion of the RCUK open access policy"),
but [Richard Poynder's new
post](http://poynder.blogspot.fi/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html)
reminds me that we Brits really do need to be up in arms over the abject
behaviour of our supposed representatives, the research councils (RCUK).
As a direct result of this policy, the publisher Emerald has now
introduced 24-month embargoes on RCUK-funded papers, where before it had
none.

The scandal here is that when RCUK first published [their draft
open-access
policy](http://www.openscholarship.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/rcuk_proposed_policy_on_access_to_research_outputs.pdf)
in March 2012, [it was
exemplary](http://svpow.com/2012/03/30/my-rcuk-submission/ "My RCUK submission").
Its front page summarised its key points as follows:

> - Specifically stating that Open Access includes unrestricted use of
>   manual and automated text and data mining tools; and unrestricted
>   reuse of content with proper attribution.
> - Requiring publication in journals that meet Research Council
>   'standards' for Open Access.
> - **No support for publisher embargoes of longer than six months**
>   from the date of publication (12 months for research funded by the
>   Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and
>   Social Research Council (ESRC)).

Subsequent revisions of this policy have systematically removed all
three of these policies: [Green-OA papers may now be encumbered by
commercial
clauses](http://svpow.com/2013/01/12/my-submission-to-the-house-of-lords-science-and-technology-committee/ "My submission to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee"),
RCUK has said it will not enforce its journal standards, and the maximum
six-month embargo for STM publication has quadrupled to 24 months.

As a matter of fact, it looks uncannily as though they read [my
comments](http://svpow.com/2012/03/30/my-rcuk-submission/) and
deliberately did the exact opposite. (No, I am *not* seriously
suggesting that's what happened. I'm not paranoid. What actually
happened is less conspiracy-flavoured: I want what's good for the world;
publishers want what's good for publishers, [which is the
opposite](http://svpow.com/2013/02/16/publishers-versus-libraries/ "Publishers versus libraries").
They got what they wanted.)

How the hell did this happen?

The irony here is that the House of Lords select committee [criticised
RCUK for "lack of
consultation"](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/122/122.pdf)
when in fact it had circulated its initial policy for comments. It was
*after this* that RCUK threw out all its progressive promises without
consultation --- except, evidently, with the publishers to whom it so
cravenly capitulated.

**Where was the consultation on the 24-month embargoes now being
exploited by "publishers" like Emerald?** There was none: suddenly, from
out of the blue, [the Publishers Association's "decision tree"
appeared](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/122/12206.htm)
bearing the shameful legend "endorsed by BIS and RCUK". On whose
mandate? BIS and RCUK both exist to spend taxpayers' money: **when did
taxpayers give their consent to quadrupling embargoes?**

The whole thing makes me want to weep. By this stage in the proceedings,
we *expect* barrier-based publishers to [act against the interests of
every other
party](http://svpow.com/2012/05/18/publishers-versus-everyone/ "Publishers versus everyone").
What we don't expect it for our elected representatives to collude.

Could we at least have the courtesy of some kind of explanation for
RCUK?


I know I’ve written about this before, but Richard Poynder’s new post reminds me that we Brits really do need to be up in arms over the abject behaviour of our supposed representatives, the research councils (RCUK). As a direct result of this policy, the publisher Emerald has now introduced 24-month embargoes on RCUK-funded papers, where before it had none.

Why did RCUK betray us to barrier-based publishers?

Here's a timeline of what's happened with the RCUK's open access policy
(with thanks to [Richard Van Noorden](https://twitter.com/Richvn) for
helping to elucidate it).

**March 2012:** [draft
policy](http://www.openscholarship.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/rcuk_proposed_policy_on_access_to_research_outputs.pdf)
released for comment. As I noted in [my
submission](http://svpow.com/2012/03/30/my-rcuk-submission/ "My RCUK submission"),
it was excellent. It did not accept non-commercial clauses (on either
Gold or Green OA), and allowed Green-OA embagoes of no more than six
months (with a twelve-month exception for two humanities councils). "It
is anticipated that the revised policy will be adopted in summer 2012"

**July 2012:** [actual
policy](http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf)
released. Weakened to allow publishers to impose non-commercial clauses
on Green OA. (They didn't tell anyone they'd made this change, as far as
I ever saw. I discovered it for myself.) "The policy applies to all
research papers whose work was funded by RCUK being submitted for
publication from 1 April 2013"

**November 2012:** RCUK announce that they will only fund APCs for [45%
of
articles](http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/news/2012news/Pages/121108.aspx)
as Gold OA.

**January 2013:** RCUK announce that they "[will not
enforce](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/rcuk-open-access-guidance-revised/2002396.article)"
embargo periods.

**February 2013:** In response to House of Lords enquiry, RCUK
[clarifes](http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/open-access-report-published/)
"that it will gradually phase in its open access policy over a five year
implementation phase". BIS and RCUK both endorse embargo-period
"[decision
tree](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/122/12206.htm#a6)"
that allows embargoes of up to two years.

[![vomit](https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg?w=200&h=195){.aligncenter
.size-full .wp-image-7875 loading="lazy" attachment-id="7875"
permalink="http://svpow.com/2013/02/22/the-progressive-erosion-of-the-rcuk-open-access-policy/vomit/"
orig-file="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg"
orig-size="200,195" comments-opened="1"
image-meta="{\"aperture\":\"0\",\"credit\":\"\",\"camera\":\"\",\"caption\":\"\",\"created_timestamp\":\"0\",\"copyright\":\"\",\"focal_length\":\"0\",\"iso\":\"0\",\"shutter_speed\":\"0\",\"title\":\"\"}"
image-title="vomit" image-description="" image-caption=""
medium-file="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg?w=200"
large-file="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg?w=200"
width="200" height="195"
srcset="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg 200w, https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg?w=150&h=146 150w"
sizes="(max-width: 200px) 100vw, 200px"}](http://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vomit.jpeg)

At every single step of the way, the RCUK policy has been weakened. From
being the best and most progressive in the world, it's now considerably
weaker than policies already in action elsewhere in the world, and
hardly represents an increment on their 2006 policy. Crucially, *all
three* of the key differences discussed in March's draft policy have now
been eliminated:

- "Specifically stating that Open Access includes unrestricted use of
  manual and automated text and data mining tools; and unrestricted
  reuse of content with proper attribution." --- **not if you use Green
  OA.**
- "Requiring publication in journals that meet Research Council
  'standards' for Open Access." --- **this will not be enforced.**
- "No support for publisher embargoes of longer than six months from the
  date of publication (12 months for research funded by the Arts and
  Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social
  Research Council (ESRC))." --- **no, embargoes of up to 24 months
  allowed even in the sciences.**

Can anyone doubt that the nobbling of a truly progressive policy was the
result of lobbying by a truly regressive publishing industry? It's been
a tragedy to watch this policy erode away from something dramatic to
almost nothing. Once more, it's [publishers versus everyone
else](http://svpow.com/2013/02/16/publishers-versus-libraries/ "Publishers versus libraries").

Again, I have to ask this very simple question: why do we tolerate the
*obvious* conflict of interest in allowing publishers to have [*any say
at
all*](http://svpow.com/2012/05/17/see-this-is-why-publishers-irritate-me-so-much/ "See, this is why publishers irritate me so much")
in deciding how our government spends public money on publication
services?


Here’s a timeline of what’s happened with the RCUK’s open access policy (with thanks to Richard Van Noorden for helping to elucidate it).
<strong>
 March 2012:
</strong>
draft policy released for comment. As I noted in my submission, it was excellent.

Publicaciones de Rogue Scholar

Why did RCUK betray us to barrier-based publishers?

The progressive erosion of the RCUK open access policy