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

dullhunk" > 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 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.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



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

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: 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.

Popular Now

  1. 2017 Top 10 Innovations
    Features 2017 Top 10 Innovations

    From single-cell analysis to whole-genome sequencing, this year’s best new products shine on many levels.

  2. Thousands of Mutations Accumulate in the Human Brain Over a Lifetime
  3. Antiviral Immunotherapy Comes of Age
    News Analysis Antiviral Immunotherapy Comes of Age

    T-cell therapies are not just for cancer. Researchers are also advancing immunotherapy methods to protect bone marrow transplant patients from viral infections. 

  4. Search for Life on the Red Planet