Abstract: "Irrespective of what funds the UK elects to spend on paying pre-emptively for Gold OA while subscriptions still need to be paid, and independent of embargo policy, the UK should (1) mandate and enforce immediate deposit of the author's peer-reviewed final draft of every journal article in the author's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication and (2) designate repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for performance review and research assessment."

PeerJ's first clutch of 30 articles have been published. One interesting feature is the DOI which is of the form 10.7717/peerj.nn (maybe I should have put in 6 or 7 "n"s......). The PeerJ site is elegantly designed, and the images are of very high quality e.g. https://dfzljdn9uc3pi.cloudfront.net/2013/36/1/fig-9-2x.jpg. If PeerJ had not restricted itself to STEM (and how long would that last) I could see it "sweeping all before it".

Blog post with dialogue in the comments section between the author and Stevan Harnad. Concluding para: "Open Access publishing is itself a complex, and currently controversial, issue. The "Green" versus "Gold" debate, though, is misleading. The imperative is to get to a point where all the costs of publishing, whether negligible or requiring developed mechanisms for meeting Article Processing Charges (APCs), are fully met up front so that copies-of-record can be made freely available under arrangements such as the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC licence. This was our key argument in the Finch Group report, and the case has been remade in a recent - excellent - posting by Stuart Shieber, Harvard's Director of the Office of Scholarly Communication."

The URL points to a DOC file that is the SLSA's thoughtful though slightly "plague on both green and gold" evidence to the House of Commons Select BIS Committee Inquiry into Open Access, written from the perspectives of a learned society that does not publish a journal.

The interesting thing about this Times Higher piece is the number of comments and (at the time of posting) the coherence of the comments that counter the main line in the piece.

One interesting conclusion from the PEER project: "The author deposit rate in the PEER Project was exceptionally low. This unwillingness to deposit, even when the author explicitly is invited by the publisher, suggests that author selfarchiving will not generate a critical mass of Green OA content."

New (January 2013, but undated) policy from the MS Society is an interesting variation on the central theme. Excerpts: 3.1. It is a condition of grant award that peer reviewed research papers resulting from research funded, in whole or in part, by the MS Society are published in an Open Access environment and made available through Europe PMC. 3.2. Such papers must become Open Access as soon as possible following publication, and in all cases within 6 months of the publication date. 3.3. Where authors are required to pay an open access fee, the MS Society regretfully cannot cover these costs. == 4.2. In order to self-archive authors must ensure certain rights are reserved in any agreement with the publisher. Specifically, authors will need the right to deposit peer-reviewed manuscripts in Europe PMC immediately upon its acceptance for publication and to make it publicly available within 6 months after publication. == 5.1. In exceptional circumstances authors can publish in journals that are noncompliant with the MS Society's open access policy if it is considered to be the most appropriate journal to publish in. 5.2. In the event that authors decide to publish in a journal that is not compliant with MS Society's open access policy, authors should notify the MS Society of this when a manuscript is submitted, providing justification for the decision.

"It is a costly process, and the leading journals can be quite expensive for libraries to buy, but at least the research that does get published is reasonably reliable." writes Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute, in this critique of Government policy on OA, ignoring, it seems to me, the extent of market failure in scholarly publishing.

Key passage: "But, achieving open access is not easy. Professional maintenance and distribution of large digital archives, guaranteed for the long term, does incur significant cost. The most promising model for recovering such costs under an open-access regime is an author-pays (or, in effect, a funding institution pays) model. Such a scheme introduces issues of its own. If publishers generate revenue by producing more content (paid for by authors) rather than quality content (paid for by subscribers), then the natural tendency in the system will be for the generation of large quantities of low-quality content. Indeed, we have seen the rise of predatory publishers, actively seeking authors to pay for publication in venues devoid of the exacting scrutiny of conscientious peer review. The result is a glut of third-rate publications that add noise rather than insight to the scientific enterprise. The important question is: Can we establish a sustainable economic model for publication that serves the interest of both authors and the reading public? We submit that non-profit professional societies must play a critical role in this regard. They are the hallmark of quality in publications, and must remain so to serve the interests of the reading public. But, how do we transition from the current subscription model to a new financial model enabling open access in a way that does not bankrupt the organization in the process? This question has occupied the attention of the ACM Publications Board for several years. Because the stakes are high, the Board has chosen to move with caution."

Tony Hey, now with Microsoft, was in the thick of things in the UK when the original push for (repository based) OA began, so his very balanced observations on Finch and the RCUK OA policy are particularly germane. Key paragraph: "What should RCUK do now? In my opinion, RCUK could make a very small but significant change in its open access policy and adopt a rights-retention green OA mandate that requires 'RCUK-funded authors to retain certain non-exclusive rights and use them to authorize green OA'. In the words of Peter Suber, this would 'create a standing green option regardless of what publishers decide to offer on their own.' In addition, RCUK should recommend that universities follow the Open Access Policy Guidelines of Harvard, set out by their Office of Scholarly Communication. Under this policy, Harvard authors are required to deposit a full text version of their paper in DASH, the Harvard Open Access Repository even in the case where the publisher does not permit open access and the author has been unable to obtain a waiver from the publisher."

Yesterday, Research Councils UK confirmed it would back down to the government's view, at least for the next half-decade. Although its policy - to go into effect from 1 April - says 6 and 12 months, in practice RCUK (the umbrella body for the UK's seven funding agencies) would not enforce those embargoes, and would permit 12 and 24 month delays - so long as publishers also offered researchers the option of paying up-front to make their work free immediately, an alternative open-access model ....... In the end, it will be the level of enforcement - rather than the policies themselves - that will drive an open access shift.

Editorial in the Journal of Hymenoptera Research charting progress over the two years since JHR switched to Gold OA supported by modest APCs (Open Access Publication Fee (per page): EURO 15.00 (for members of the International Society of Hymenopterists); EURO 22.00 (for non-members), with a minimum fee of EURO 150 (EURO 220 for non-members) for papers smaller than 10 printed pages. Larger papers will be charged according to the following rates: 1-10 printed pages - EUR 150 (220 for non-members of ISH) 11-100 printed pages - EUR 150 (220 for non-members of ISH) + EUR 15 (22 for non-members of ISH) per page for the number of pages above 10.

Abstract of 'field report' in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog : "The Open Library of Humanities is a newly-launched project aiming to provide an ethically sound and sustainable open access model for humanities research. By coordinating the discussion and implementation of a community-grounded approach to academic publishing, OLH aims to create an outlet better able to serve academics, libraries, and the wider research community. Co-founder Martin Eve describes the current "ideas phase" of the project and outlines his vision of where it will go from here."

An edited transcript of a talk by Shieber, who is Director of the Office of Scholarly Communication at Harvard University. Provides an economic analysis of journal access as "complementary good", and argues that an APC based system is more efficient (from a market economics point of view) that a subscription based system.

300 page PDF on the Parliament web site, with nearly 70 responses including from Government (David Willetts), funders, publishers, individuals with knowledge of the field, learned societies, universities.

Interesting post on the LSE "Impact of Social Sciences" blog by Glasgow University's Roderic D. M. Page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D.M._Page mainly about how Elsevier might develop Mendeley. Four options put forward:Mendeley becomes iTunes for papers; Mendeley becomes the de facto measure of research impact; Mendeley becomes an authoring tool; Mendeley becomes the focus of post-publicaton peer review.

Broad mix of people on the Open Library of Humanities Academic Steering and Advocacy Committee, including Michael Eisen, who co-founded PLOS; and Peter Suber.

Key points: * OASPA recognizes the interests of funders in seeking to maximize access to the results of research funded under their programmes. * OASPA supports the RCUK policy support for gold open access as the preferred model, with additional funds being made available. * OASPA supports the RCUK policy requirement for a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence to be used where Research Council funds are used to meet a gold open access fee. * The APC levels per article that are assumed by the RCUK policy following the Report by the National Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, are reasonable and in line with the experiences of open access publishers. * Infrastructural challenges exist (e.g. payment mechanisms), and are being addressed by the necessary stakeholders. OASPA is committed to engaging actively with stakeholders to resolve these.

Joseph Esposito writes in the "The Scholarly Kitchen" about what he sees as an O'Reilly shaped (dominated) ecosystem in which the Safari Books approach to online publishing and all that it entails becomes an important model, that will spread into journal publishing too (PeerJ will be built on Safari, according to Esposito.

Media release that starts as follows: Jisc Collections, the UK academic community's shared service for content licensing and administration, has entered into an agreement with Open Access Key (OAK), the online payment platform for open access publishing, to run a 12 month pilot project, Jisc APC, to test its role in managing and processing Gold OA article payment charges made by its member institutions.