For Finch/RCUK: (1) Peter Suber and (2) Swan & Houghton on Green/Gold OA Cost/Benefits and Priorities

PETER SUBER:
Ensuring Open Access for Publicly Funded Research
British Medical Journal 2012

“What matters first is to use the tools we have to drive open access for the benefit of researchers and taxpayers?. To do that on a global scale, every research funding agency, public or private, and every university, should require green open access for new peer reviewed research articles by their grantees and faculty. Institutions should take that step before adding new incentives or new funding for gold. Because green and gold have complementary advantages, we eventually want both. But that means using the strengths of green, not just the strengths of gold, and the major strengths of green lie in providing a fast and inexpensive transition to free online access. To fund the transition to gold without first harnessing the power of green incurs premature expense, leaves the transition incomplete, and puts the interests of publishers ahead of the interests of research?.”

ALMA SWAN & JOHN HOUGHTON:
Going for Gold?

Costs and benefits of Gold Open Access for UK research institutions
Report to UK Open Access Implementation Group

“[For UK universities] during a transition period when subscriptions are maintained, the cost of adopting Green OA is much lower than the cost of Gold OA – with Green OA self-archiving costing institutions around one-fifth the amount that Gold OA might cost, and as little as one-tenth as much for the most research intensive university sampled. In a transition period, providing OA through the Green route would have substantial economic benefits for universities, unless additional funds were released for Gold OA, beyond those already available through the Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust?”


STEVAN HARNAD:
How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be Revised

Keynote: Digital Research 2012
St Catherine’s College, Oxford
11 September 2012: 9:00am-10:30am