Australian campaigners demand open access step change

Advocacy groups demand action from next government

May 14, 2019
Open sign

Australian open access advocates have demanded a post-election purge of overpriced science, giving the next education minister three years to change the research publishing paradigm.

Lobby groups say that in the space of a decade, Australia has stumbled from being a “world leader” in research access – armed with a coast-to-coast system of institutional repositories – to an international laggard.

The two groups say that fair access to research outputs would be “a realistic and significant accomplishment” for a new or reappointed minister, and that recent events provide a platform to “catalyse a discussion on how Australia can match the rest of the world”.

These developments include recent reports by the Productivity Commission advisory body and a House of Representatives standing committee, as well as the global spread of Europe’s Plan S open access initiative.

The two groups, the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG) and Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), have released a joint statement on the eve of Australia’s 18 May federal election. It says that access to scholarly research is at a “stalemate” because of tensions between the needs of research institutions, which want their research disseminated as widely as possible, and commercial publishers that “primarily serve the needs of their shareholders”.

“There is no overarching strategy to ensure a coherent approach to open scholarship. The various Australian initiatives often overlap. No one body is responsible for coordination; nor is there any dedicated funding for a strategic approach. The opportunity and imperative for action is now,” the statement says.

The statement chides the incumbent Coalition government for having failed to produce a national open access policy two years after accepting a Productivity Commission recommendation that such a policy was needed.

And in a nod to the opposition Labor party’s pledge to review post-school education if it wins the election, the statement says open scholarship should be included in the terms of reference “for any post-election inquiries”.

It says that despite open access requirements imposed by the main research funding agencies and about half of universities, just 32 per cent of journal articles submitted to last year’s Excellence in Research for Australia evaluation were freely available.

The country’s universities pay more than A$280 million (£150 million) a year to give staff access to academic outputs, the statement adds. When health, government and industry bodies are factored in, the national subscription bill is incalculable because “there is no national data source for this”.

The statement says a cross-sectoral body should be formed to develop and implement a national action plan for open scholarship within three years. The task would include mapping the Australian publishing landscape, scoping global best practice, commissioning a cost-benefit analysis and making recommendations on policy, actions and funding.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

相关文章

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October