You are viewing your 1 free article this month. Login to read more articles.
Academic publishers say they have concerns around funding, embargoes and timing following the announcement of the new UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Open Access policy last week.
The new policy is only for research publications that receive funding from the UKRI, and requires immediate Open Access for peer-reviewed research articles submitted for publication from 1st April 2022. It also includes a new requirement for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1st January 2024 to be made Open Access within 12 months of publication. The UKRI has said it will provide increased funding of up to £46.7m a year to support the implementation of the policy.
Independent Publishers Guild academic and policy correspondent Richard Fisher said the policy on long-form publications “contains some welcome pragmatic flexibility” including that it is now up to authors and their publishers to decide whether a work is an academic monograph, which would have to comply with the policy, or a trade book. He also acknowledged the policy mainly affects the big science and STEM journals, with most works in arts and social science publications out of scope because they are funded in other ways. These publishers are still waiting to hear from the Research Excellence Framework about its new Open Access policy.
However, while the vast majority of publishers said they welcome Open Access, which ensures publicly-funded research is made publicly available, some said they worried the funding did not go far enough, and that different versions of Open Access being promoted alongside each other could risk reversing progress.
In its response, the University of Oxford said the timetable for implementing the new policy is “too soon” to allow for planning, preparation and the “number of significant changes that are required to funding models, budgets, institutional repositories, and CRIS (current research information system) systems”.
It added that while the commitment to increased funding is “welcome” the policy “lacks necessary commitments and detail”, warning that an underfunded policy for the UK research community would result in a less diverse publishing market. It also expressed a concern that the short monograph embargo policy “will affect buyer behaviour before the embargo date as well as after, effectively meaning potential customers will choose to wait for free versions rather than purchase during the one-year sales window envisioned in the policy”. It added: “The ultimate consequence of this might be fewer monograph publishers and less choice for researchers” and said a “blanket policy mandate on monographs is not appropriate at this stage”.
For research articles, it also said that immediate green Open Access, presents a “significant risk” to the financial viability of journals and the learned societies that publish them. Gold Open Access is where an author publishes their article in an online Open Access journal. In contrast, immediate green Open Access is where an author publishes their article in any journal and then self-archives a copy in a freely accessible institutional or specialist online archive known as a repository, or on a website. Both routes are accepted as compliant in the new UKRI policy.
However, hybrid journals, which collect subscriptions as well as accepting payment for Open Access papers, will be excluded, meaning that UKRI-funded research could not be published in titles such as Nature.
Steven Inchcoombe, chief publishing and solutions officer at Springer Nature, said this risked "leaving authors behind". He said: "Restricting funding only to articles in journals that are either fully OA or form part of a ‘transitional agreement’ (TA) means that it looks like UK authors will not be able to publish in Nature or any other transformative journal where no such agreement is in place. And even if there are TAs in place, by making this new policy apply to all UKRI-funded authors, not just lead (corresponding) authors, it risks other problems like conflict with their international co-authors who may not be covered by TAs, thereby limiting their publishing options.
“With this announcement, UKRI risks undermining the fantastic progress we have collectively made in the UK in ensuring the final version of all primary research is immediately accessible and that authors have the maximum choice of journals in which to publish their research.”
Stephen Lotinga, c.e.o of the PA, has also argued that the green Open Access route "is unsustainably linked to subscription models and could undermine efforts to continue to publish research to the high standards of quality the UK is known for". He added: “On monographs, it is crucial that sufficient funding is directed to support the transition as the Open Access models are in their infancy and much longer lead times are involved."
Wayne Sime, chief executive at the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) said in an open letter: “Limiting the opportunity for funded articles to publish in hybrid journals does not benefit learned society authors as it restricts their choice on where to publish. Whilst many ALPSP members are investigating whether a transformative/transitional agreement may be a viable option, many learned societies have found that the complexities involved in setting up and maintaining these agreements can be extremely difficult, particularly for smaller societies who may only publish a few journals. This may inadvertently put these smaller publishers at a distinct disadvantage and result in their journals no longer being selected by UKRI-funded authors
“Additionally, making hybrid journals fully gold Open Access may not be possible in the near future if there is insufficient gold Open Access content to include in these journals. This could well lead to major economic difficulties for many learned and professional societies."
Taylor & Francis said it had concerns about the emphasis on zero embargo, zero payment Open Access for accepted manuscripts and believed its concerns were not considered in good faith during the consultation. “Achieving OA is a huge systemic change and we believe a more collegiate approach would provide better results all round,” it said.
In a statement, the publisher added: “This is not something that we are able to support, as it removes the ability for publishers to be remunerated for the considerable amount of work that goes into progressing an article to acceptance.
“We also have concerns about the potential implications for society partners who shape and develop subject communities and rely on journal funding to support their mission, and for communities where funding is not typically available - such as humanities and social sciences.”
A UKRI spokesperson said: "The UKRI Open Access policy will ensure increased opportunities to access, share and reuse the outputs of research across all of the disciplines UKRI funds, benefiting the research community and generating greater social and economic impact.
"UKRI thanks all consultees, including those from the publishing sector, for their responses to the consultation on the new policy. These responses, along with those from elsewhere across the sector, were considered carefully alongside other evidence and analysis that were inputs to the review, within the context of UKRI’s aims and obligations as a public research funder. We have provided a detailed rationale of our policy choices on our website.
"It will be possible from April 2022 to use UKRI funding for hybrids that are subject to transitional arrangements, which can include transitional agreements or journals, when they are approved via Jisc as meeting the sector’s requirements. These requirements will be set by the sector as determined by Jisc on its behalf. Jisc will set out further details on its approach in September."