Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal

The STM have written a response to the RCUK proposal in which they too, like the ALPSP, adduce reasons for delaying and modifying the implementation of the RCUK self-archiving policy. The principal substantive misunderstanding about the RCUK policy itself is that the STM is arguing as if RCUK were proposing to mandate a different publishing business model (Open Access [OA] Publishing) whereas RCUK is proposing to mandate no such thing: It is merely proposing to mandate that RCUK fundees self-archive the final author’s drafts of journal articles resulting from RCUK-funded research in order to make their findings accessible to all potential users whose institutions cannot afford access to the published journal version – in order to maximise the uptake, usage and impact of British research output. As such, the author’s free self-archived version is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the journal’s paid version. STM (like ALPSP) express concern that self-archiving may diminish their revenues. It is pointed out by way of reply (as was pointed out in the reply to ALPSP) that all evidence to date is in fact to the contrary. STM express concern that self-archiving will compromise peer review. It is pointed out that it is the author's peer-reviewed draft that is being self-archived. STM express concern that self-archiving the author's version will create confusion about versions: It is pointed out that for those would-be users who cannot afford the paid journal version, the author's version is incomparably better than no version at all, and indeed has been demonstrated to enhance citation impact by 50-250%. STM express concern about the costs of Institutional Repositories (IRs): It is pointed out that IRs are neither expensive nor intended as substitutes for journal publishing, so their costs are irrelevant to STM. STM then express concern that the OA publishing business model would cost more than the current subscription-based model: It is pointed out that the OA model is not what is being mandated by RCUK

The elusive gold mine? The finer details of creative commons licences – and why they really matter

This article explores the tensions inherent in the ownership and reuse of scholarly works, with a focus on achieving open access (OA) aims via Creative Commons licences. This US initiative has had an enormous impact on the access to, dissemination and reuse of UK-authored scholarly literature since the Finch report of 2012. However, confusion abounds within the funding, publishing and academic communities about the correct uses and long-term implications of using such licences. This has legal consequences, as well as consequences for the author, readers and institutions who have to report compliance regarding OA in order to secure future research funding. Ownership is an important part of this picture. Creative Commons licences are legally binding on licensor and licensee, and only the copyright owner may release their work under such a licence. The complex research funding and sharing ecosystem has resulted in a ‘policy stack’ challenge1 with authors given little choice about their options. This paper examines some of these challenges through an exploration of current UKRI policy and the copyright licences of one publisher, with a focus on text and data mining

Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration

The UK Research Funding Councils (RCUK) have proposed that all RCUK fundees should self-archive on the web, free for all, their own final drafts of all journal articles reporting their RCUK-funded research, in order to maximise their usage and impact. ALPSP (a learned publishers' association) now seeks to delay and block the RCUK proposal, arguing that it will ruin journals. All objective evidence from the past decade and a half of self-archiving, however, shows that self-archiving can and does co-exist peacefully with journals while greatly enhancing both author/article and journal impact, to the benefit of both. Journal publishers should not be trying to delay and block self-archiving policy; they should be collaborating with the research community on ways to share its vast benefits

Applying Optimality Findings: Critique of Graham Taylor's Critique of RCUK Self-Archiving Mandate

Graham Taylor, director of educational, academic and professional publishing at the Publishers Association, criticises the Research Councils UK (RCUK) proposal to require that the author of every published article based on RCUK-funded research must “self-archive” a supplementary “open access” version on the web so it can be freely read and used by any researcher worldwide whose institution cannot afford the journal in which it was published. The purpose of the RCUK policy is to maximise the usage and impact of research. Taylor argues that it may have an adverse affect on some journals. This critique points out that there is no evidence from 15 years of open-access self-archiving that it has had any adverse affect on journals and a great deal of evidence that it enhances research impact

Building a Successful Service: Developing Open Access Funding and Advocacy at University College London

The UK Research Councils (RCUK) introduced an open access pol- icy, and accompanying funding for Article Processing Charges (APCs), in April 2013. This article describes University College London (UCL)’s experience of managing its institutional, RCUK, and Wellcome Trust open access funds, and highlights its success in exceeding the RCUK target in the first year of the policy. A large institution, processing around 1,770 APCs in 2013–2014, UCL has established a dedicated Open Access Funding Team. As well as advising authors on funders’ and publishers’ requirements, man- aging payments, and liaising with publishers, the Team delivers a comprehensive open access advocacy programme throughout the institution. Researchers who have used the Team’s services show astonishing levels of enthusiasm for open access, and for UCL’s approach to supporting them

What do researchers do? Career profiles of doctoral graduates

Research Councils UK (RCUK

RCUK Business Plan competition

Abstract: Sensory Design & Technology Ltd (SD&T) is seeking investment to develop and sell eScent® jewellery at a retailer in time for Christmas 2 012. The company mission is to enhance the ‘wellbeing’ of women. Women are having children later in life; they want to stay young, feel good and look good for a longer period of time and their spending power is at its greatest between the ages of 35-45. The target market is ‘wellbeing’ which has been on the increase in recent years. It is currently valued at £212 million in the UK and set to rise. There is increased media attention and consumer focus on environmentally friendly ‘eco’ products which are also pushing the growth of this market. This is increased by regulation to ensure product claims are valid due to fake ‘wellbeing’ claims. There are more than 8.5 million people in the UK who survive on as little as four hours of sleep a night. Women particularly find the juggling act of holding down a job and family life extremely challenging. Half of employed mothers reported sleep deprivation causing acute levels of stress and placing tremendous burden on marriages. Products to improve sleep grew by 10 per cent in 2009 and are worth £38 million in the UK. By 2014, sales of such products are expected to reach £45.3 million. This need is met by selling eScent®; scent dispensing jewellery that is solvent-free, reduces anxiety, improves sleep, rejuvenates the mind and is kinder to the skin. The way people use scent today in almost all applications is poorly targeted, inefficient and wasteful. eScent® is for everyday use; it is a high-tech product that is programmed to deliver a ‘wardrobe of fragrances’ to improve ‘wellbeing’, help relax and unwind. eScent® is fabricated from a built-in microfluidic device and delivers a personalised scent therapy experience, focussed solely for the user – day and night. It offers a patented, timed/controlled therapeutic scent dispenser which can also be placed on a bedside table, a child’s car seat or crib. The business model lies in SD&T designing the products, distributed initially by an exclusive launch at a retailer. The secondary market is for SD&T to sell replaceable cartridges as consumable products which are expected to be considerably greater than the primary market. At a later stage, the company will expand further into other market opportunities including medical, mobile phones, consumer products and apparel. The comp any would seek further investment from leading fashion designers to miniaturise eScent® and integrate within buttons to deliver their own signature perfumes. SD&T has an experienced management team with the relevant skills for this business in Fashion, Fragrance, Microfluidics and Biotechnology. The Chairman designate of the company is the former Chairman of the Fragrance Foundation. The company was founded by Dr Jenny Tillotson, a Senior Research Fellow in Fashion at Central Saint Martins and Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge. Dr Tillotson is acknowledged as a pioneer in the growing science and art of Scentsory Design®; computerised scent-output systems worn on the body for fashion and ‘wellbeing’ applications. She gained commercial experience working for a Wearable Technology company spinout from the MIT Media Lab

New Technological Interventions in Conservation Conflicts : Countering Emotions and Contested Knowledge

RCUK Digital Economy programme Grant number EP/G066051/1 Open access via Springer Compact AgreementPeer reviewedPublisher PD

United Kingdom's open access policy urgently needs a tweak

The UK government, under the joint influence of the publisher lobby and short-sighted advice from Open Access (OA) advocates, has decided to make all UK research output OA within two years by diverting funds from UK research to pay publishers extra for (Gold) OA publishing, over and above what the UK (and the rest of the world) already pays publishers for journal subscriptions. This would merely be a needless waste of UK's scarce research funds in exchange for OA, instead of strengthening the UK's existing mandate for cost-free (Green) OA self-archiving. But the UK has also been persuaded to require researchers to pick and pay for Gold OA, instead of leaving the Green/Gold choice to them. This requirement needs to be dropped to prevent perverse consequences, both locally and globally, for both the UK and OA

Assessing the Quality of Semantic Sensor Data

Acknowledgements The research described here is supported by the award made by the RCUK Digital Economy programme to the dot.rural Digital Economy Hub; award reference: EP/G066051/1.Publisher PD