Advertisement
BD Biosciences
BD Biosciences

UK Pushes Open Access

Starting in April 2013, research supported by the United Kingdom government must be made freely available within 6 months of publication.

By | July 16, 2012

image: UK Pushes Open Access Flickr, dullhunk

A new policy, announced this morning by Research Councils UK (RCUK), will require UK scientists and their international researcher collaborators to go open access with all publications coming out of work supported by one of the country’s seven government-funded grant agencies, starting next April. This is the final version of a draft policy release in March, which received many supportive comments, an RCUK spokesperson told Nature.

The new policy describes a plan to take money out of research grants to cover open access publishing fees. These can entail publishers’ fees for immediate open-access publication—a route chosen by some 5 percent of papers published by UK authors in 2010. See a breakdown of open-access publishing in the UK, including how it varies by discipline.

It is currently unclear how RCUK will sanction those researchers who fail to comply, but the new policy will affect a large proportion of researchers in the country: the UK funding agencies collectively spend some £2.8 billion (about US$4.35 billion) each year.

Stay tuned to www.the-scientist.com for a discussion of the scholarly publishing landscape, and how it’s set to change in coming years, to be published in our August issue.

Advertisement
ASM
ASM

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: jhnycmltly

jhnycmltly

Posts: 65

July 17, 2012

It still comes down to 'peer review' and the inability to get published if there are enough naysayers in the audience. Evidenced by Luc and his forty Nobel prize winning detractors 'going the extra mile' to not allow him to continue his work and research. Thesis' with very little to go for them but extensive medical studies are commonly disallowed publication simply because the 'peer reviewers' refuse to allow them to be published. Just recently I presented a synopsis of research into diabetes. As an analogy , they found all those with blue hats manifested diabetes. I was told outright , by a member of the review committee , blue hats didn't predict diabetes. After all the work of finding the studies , correlating the studies , down to "blue hats manifest diabetes" , all that needed to stop the 'roll' was this 'peer reviewer' simply denying blue hats predicted diabetes. THAT type of bias is prevalent in the review process and until peer reviewers like that are punished , severely , it will never change for the better. Imho.

Advertisement
EMD Millipore
EMD Millipore

Popular Now

  1. Turning Tumor Cells Against Cancer
  2. Neanderthals’ Genetic Legacy
  3. Brazil’s Pre-Zika Microcephaly Cases
    The Nutshell Brazil’s Pre-Zika Microcephaly Cases

    A review of four years’ worth of medical records finds far greater numbers of microcephaly cases from before the ongoing Zika virus epidemic than had been officially reported.

  4. The Mycobiome
    Features The Mycobiome

    The largely overlooked resident fungal community plays a critical role in human health and disease.

Advertisement
INTEGRA
INTEGRA
Advertisement
Life Technologies