Big OA News from the U.K.!

“Our goal is a transformation in the accessibility of research and data.”(6.10, p.78)
There is a lot of buzz online regarding a new policy report released last week from the British government.
The “Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth” report may be downloaded from here.
From the press release:
“The strategy, launched by Business Secretary Vince Cable and Minister for Universities and Science David Willetts, sets out the Government’s plans to boost economic growth through investment in research and innovation across the UK.”
The relevant Open Access statements begin in section 6, p.76, here are just a few of examples:
6.6 “The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to transparency and open data, is committed to ensuring that publicly-funded research should be accessible free of charge.”
6.8: “Government will work with partners, including the publishing industry, to achieve free access to publicly-funded research as soon as possible and will set an example itself.”
6.9 “The Research Councils expect the researchers they fund to deposit published articles or conference proceedings in an open access repository at or around the time of publication. But this practice is unevenly enforced. Therefore, as an immediate step, we have asked the Research Councils to ensure the researchers
they fund fulfill the current requirements. Additionally, the Research Councils have now agreed to invest £2 million in the development, by 2013, of a UK ‘Gateway to Research’.
The entire report: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/i/11-1387-innovation-and-research-strategy-for-growth.pdf

Predatory OA Publishers

Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, has just released his 2012 list of Predatory Open-Access Publishers over at his Metadata blog.
From the blog entry:
“Predatory, open-access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit.”
These are the sort of “publishers” that cause confusion and suspicion regarding the quality of reputable OA publications. They perpetuate the myth that OA = vanity publishing and/or low-quality peer-review.
Thank you to Jeffrey for naming and shaming.