Page:Finch Group report.pdf/111

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

111


An implementation strategy

9.31. Our report and recommendations envisage a sustained and complex period of transition, during which there will be a mixed economy with a range of channels to publication, and for access to publications. A wide range of publishers—commercial and not-for-profit, including learned societies—will continue to offer subscription-based titles, but also an increasing number of hybrid and fully open access journals; and the use of repositories is likely to grow.

9.32. We stress that our mixed model represents a balanced approach to increasing access to research publications. Implementation will be an intricate process, and transition to a fully open access world will take a number of years. If the mixed model is to develop over the next few years in a sustainable way, it will require co-ordination and the active engagement of funders, universities, publishers and learned societies, as well as Government. No single interest or stakeholder group in isolation can deliver a sustainable system, or manage all the risks associated with rapid change and transition.

9.33. In order to sustain the confidence of all parties and stakeholders, it will be important during this process to gather reliable, high-quality indicators on the key features of the changing landscape, relating, for example, to costs, the take-up of different publishing strategies and their outcomes, and the return on public funding. Such indicators might include expenditure on APCs and subscriptions; average levels of APCs paid in the UK; the degree to which subscription budgets are switched to pay APCs; the proportion of UK and overseas publications that are published open access; and the number that are available in institutional or subject repositories. The precise configuration of the indicators, and the methodologies for gathering and analysing them, should be agreed between publishers, funding bodies, and representatives of the research community. But there will be need for co-ordination, starting with the identification of a neutral body which can work in the public interest, with the confidence of all parties and at minimal cost to gather and analyse the data. JISC may have a role to play here.

9.34. The key point is that formal arrangements should be put in place to monitor the process of transition, to ensure such co-ordination and active engagement from all the key parties, and to consider appropriate measures as issues arise. Such arrangements could take a number of forms: a standing group of key representatives, or a commitment to regular review, again involving all parties. But we are clear that some formal arrangements are essential, and at the very least we propose that the Group should reconvene in a year’s time to assess progress. The risks to the performance and standing of the UK research community are too great to be allowed to drift through lack of appropriate attention. The continuing development of an effective and sustainable research communications system is too important to be left to chance.