医学研究慈善机构在OA运动中的角色

学术出版/开放获取医学研究慈善机构在OA运动中的角色（科研资助/学术交流）作者：StephenPinfield许可：CopyrightStephenPinfield2013(WhiteRoseeprints)【内容简介】探讨医学研究慈善机构在推动开放获取方面的作用，发表于《学术出版》期刊，WhiteRose研究在线存档。（学术资料，仅供参考）【关键词】开放获取、医学研究、慈善机构、学术出版、出版政策、WhiteRose【分类】人文社科>图书情报与档案管理>学术交流——————————————————————————————eprints@whiterose.ac.ukhttps://eprints.whiterose.ac.ukUniversitiesofLeeds,SheffieldandYorkDepositedviaTheUniversityofSheffield.WhiteRoseResearchOnlineURLforthispaper:https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/77488/Version:PublishedVersionArticle:Pinfield,S.(2013)Medicalresearchcharitiesandopenaccess.LearnedPublishing,26(4).285-302./10.1087/20130409ReuseItemsdepositedinWhiteRoseResearchOnlineareprotectedbycopyright,withallrightsreservedunlessindicatedotherwise.Theymaybedownloadedand/orprintedforprivatestudy,orotheractsaspermittedbynationalcopyrightlaws.Thepublisherorotherrightsholdersmayallowfurtherreproductionandre-useofthefulltextversion.ThisisindicatedbythelicenceinformationontheWhiteRoseResearchOnlinerecordfortheitem.TakedownIfyouconsidercontentinWhiteRoseResearchOnlinetobeinbreachofUKlaw,pleasenotifyusbyemailingeprints@whiterose.ac.ukincludingtheURLoftherecordandthereasonforthewithdrawalrequest.Medicalresearchcharitiesandopenaccess285LEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013MedicalresearchcharitiesandopenaccessStephenPinfieldLearnedPublishing,26:285–302doi:10.1087/20130409MedicalresearchcharitiesandopenaccessStephenPINFIELDUniversityofSheffieldABSTRACT.ThispaperprovidesananalysisoftheattitudesandactivitiesofUKmedicalresearchcharitiesinrelationtoopenaccess(OA).Bothquantitativeandqualitativedataarepresentedderivedfromarecentsurveyofcharitiescoveringareassuchaspolicydevelopment,fundingarrangements,andbusinessprocessdesignforOA.PositionsonkeyissuesincludinggreenandgoldOA,fundingarticle-processingcharges(APCs),andpublicationlicencesareassessed.ModellingofpotentialAPCsasapercentageofoverallannualresearchspendisundertakentoshowpossiblecostsofacharged-forgoldsystem.MedicalresearchcharitiesclearlyregardOAasimportantandsomeseeitasanopportunitytofurthertheirmission.However,manyexpressedsignificantconcernsparticularlyaboutthecostsandexpertiserequiredtosupportOA.Furtherco-ordinationofpolicydevelopmentandactionacrossthesectorandwithotherstakeholdersisrecommendedinordertohelpensureoptimalimplementationofOA.IntroductionMedicalresearchfunders,includingchari-ties,wereamongstsomeoftheearliestadvo-catesandadoptersofopenaccess(OA).IntheUSA,theNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH),andintheUK,theWellcomeTrust,wereactiveintheOAdebateasearlyas2002.NIHlaunchedaformalOApolicyin2004andWellcomein2005,bothrequiringtheirgrant-holderstomaketheirresearchoutputsopenlyaccessible.ThepubliclyfundedMedicalResearchCouncil(MRC)intheUKfol-lowedwithanOApolicyin2006,andseveralUKcharitiesintroducedpoliciessoonafter:ArthritisResearchUK,CancerResearchUK,andtheMyrovlytisTrustallintroducedOApoliciesin2007.ThesedevelopmentsservedtocreateandreinforcethestrongassociationbetweenmedicalresearchfundersandOA.However,muchofthecommentarytodateontheparticularrelationshipbetweencharitiesinthemedicalresearchareaandOAhastendedtofocusonspecificorganizationswhichhavebeenprominentinpublicdiscussions,suchasWellcome.Thepositionsofawiderangeofcharityorganizationswithinthesectorhavenotbeensystematicallyinvestigated.Thisresearchstudyaimstogosomewaytocor-rectingthatbyprovidingacurrentviewofthesector-widesituationintheUK.Thisisparticularlyrelevantatpresent.ThelasttwoyearshavewitnessedsomemajorOAdevelopmentswhichbetweenthemarelikelytobringOAintothemainstreamofresearchpublishinganddisseminationformanydis-ciplines–developmentstowhichmedicalresearchcharitiesneedtorespond.IntheUK,thepublicationoftheFinchReport(inJune2012),1followedbynewOA-relatedpoliciesfromResearchCouncilsUK(inJuly2012andrevisedinMarch2013),2andtheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(pub-lishedasaninitialstatementinJuly2012andthenaconsultationinFebruary2013),3areallhighlysignificantdevelopments.InEurope,©StephenPinfield2013StephenPinfield286StephenPinfieldLEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013othercountriesarealsomovingaheadwithnewOApolicies,andataEurope-widelevel,theEuropeanCommissionadoptedanewOApolicyinJuly2012.4IntheUSA,theFederalFairAccesstoScienceandTechnologyResearch(FASTR)billwasannouncedinFebruary2013,andtheOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy(OSTP)alsopublisheditsOApolicymemorandumthesamemonth.5Elsewhere,theAustralianResearchCouncilintroducedanewOApolicyinJanuary2013.6Theseandsimilardevelopmentshavecreatedaclimateinwhichmedicalresearchcharitiesaredevelopingandreviewingtheirownposi-tionsandpolicies.Inthecontextofthesedevelopments,theresearchreportedherewasdesignedtoinvestigatetheattitudesandactivitiesofUKmedicalresearchcharitiesandotherrelatedmedicalresearchfundersinrelationtoOA,specifically:1.Toenableabetterunderstandingofthecurrentlandscapeofmedicalresearchchar-itiesandrelatedorganizationsandtheirattitudestoOAinordertoinformpolicydiscussions2.Tocapturedatainkeyareasofactivity,includingcurrentfundinglevels,numbersofresearchoutputs,andarticle-processingcharges(APC)paymentlevels,inordertounderstandthecurrentsituation3.Tosurfacemajorconcernscharitiescur-rentlyhavewithOA,andtheirviewsonopportunitiesOAcreates,andhowtheserelatetotheirmissionandaffecttheirdonorsandbeneficiaries4.Toidentifyactionswhichmayaddresscur-rentconcernsandexploitopportunities,andrecommendhowthesemightbeimple-mentedbykeyplayersTheresearchwasoverseenbyaStakeholderGroupconsistingofrepresentativesfromtheAssociationofMedicalResearchCharities(AMRC)andEuropePubMedCentral(EuropePMC)whosememberswerethetar-getgroupfortheresearch.TheAMRCisaUKmembershiporganizationconsistingof124medicalandhealthresearchcharitieswithanorganizationalmission‘tosupportthesector’seffectivenessandadvancemedi-calresearchbydevelopingbestpractice,pro-vidinginformationandguidance,improvingpublicdialogueaboutresearchandscience,andinfluencinggovernment’.7Itsmembersincludetrusts,fundingtheirworkfrominvest-mentsorendowments,andfund-raisingbod-ies,whichraisemoneyfromdonations.Thesizeoftheorganizationsvaries,fromthosereportingexpenditureonmedicalresearchaslowas£10,000peryeartoashighasover£500million.AnumberofAMRCmembersarealsofundersofEuropePMC.EuropePMCistheEuropeanimplementationofthelargerPubMedCentralrepositorycontaininghigh-qualitybiomedicalresources,includingpub-lishedresearchoutputs.Whenthisresearchwasundertaken,EuropePMChad17UKfunders,13ofwhomarealsomembersoftheAMRC.ThesmallnumberofUKorganiza-tionsinEuropePMCwhoarenotmembersofAMRCaregovernment-sponsoredagenciesratherthancharities.LiteraturereviewThecaseforopenaccesshasoftenbeenmadeintermsofpotentialmedicalbenefits.8Thisviewclearlyinformedthedevelopmentsofmedicalresearchfunders.Forexample,inoneofitsearlypolicydocuments,NIHreferstothepotentialforan‘accelerationofmedicalcures’createdbyOA.9Subsequentqualita-tiveworkcarriedouttotestthishypothesisonbehalfofNIHhasshownpositiveresults,10althoughobtainingclearquantitativeresultsonthismaybechallenging.WhilstthisviewmayhaveunderpinnedanumberofOApolicyimplementations,thethinkingoffundershasnotbeenwidelydoc-umentedexceptinthecaseofasmallnum-beroflargefunders.Forexample,Terry,11Pinfield,12andWalportandKiley13havedescribedthepositionoftheWellcomeTrustatvarioustimes.Intheir2006paper,WalportandKileyasDirectoroftheWellcomeTrustandHeadofeStrategy,respectively,outlineanumberofissueswhichfeatureintheresearchreportedhere.Initially,theyhighlightsomeofthecircumstanceswhichgaverisetotheTrust’sOApolicyincludinganexercisewhichshowedthatonly6%ofarticlesreportingWellcome-fundedresearchwerefreelyavail-ableontheWeb.TheythensummarizetheWellcomepolicywhichcameintoeffectinOctober2006requiringauthorstomaketheirtheAMRCisaUKmembershiporganizationconsistingof124medicalandhealthresearchcharities288StephenPinfieldLEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013papersfreelyavailableviaPubMedCentral.Theyspecifyanumberofbenefitstheirpol-icyisexpectedtodeliver,includingincreas-ingopportunitiesforresearchers’worktobemorewidelyreadandcited,enablinglinkingandintegrationofresources(e.g.linkingpub-licationswithchemicalcompounddatabases),helpingfundingbodiestoevaluateresearch,andfacilitatingthepreservationofresearch.Theydescribetheirpreferencefor‘gold’OA(OApublicationinjournals),includingthebusinessmodelinvolvingpaymentofAPCs.DevelopmentssuchasthesehavecontributedtothegrowthofgoldOAinparticularinbio-medicine.14WeretheTrusttofundallpaperswhichcitetheWellcomeasafunder,WalportandKileyestimateitwouldcostaround1.5%oftheirtotalresearchspend,althoughwiththefundingofmanyresearchprojectssharedwithotherfunders,thispercentagewouldbeexpectedtofallasothersadoptOApolicies.AswellasfundingAPCs,theyalsodescribetheWellcome’sinvestmentincreatingaver-sionofPubMedCentralintheUK,aservicewhichinitsexpandedform,EuropePMC,hasnowbeensupportedbyanumberofotherfundersinthebiomedicalfield.OthercharitieshavemadetheirOApoli-ciespubliclyavailableontheirwebsites,manyofwhichalsorequiredepositinEuropePMC.Manyallow‘green’OA(thedepositingofversionsofpapersinOArepositories)aswellasgold,althoughtheemphasisgiventoeachvaries.Forexample,ArthritisResearchUKincludesonitswebsiteastep-by-stepguideforauthorsdescribingvariouswaysinwhichitsgrant-holderscanmaketheirpapersOA.15Theguidedescribestheorganiza-tion’srequirementforpaperstobemadeOAwithinsixmonthsofpublicationonEuropePMC,howauthorscanifappropriate‘self-archive’inEuropePMC,andhowthecharitywillsupportthepaymentofAPCsincertaincircumstances.Whilstanumberoforganizationshavereleasedsimilarpolicies,thereislittlepub-lishedliteraturedescribingtheirthinkingorattitudestoOA.Someofthiscanbegar-neredfromothersources,however,includ-ingevidencerecentlysubmittedtovariousUKParliamentaryinvestigationsofopenaccess.InitswrittenevidencetotheHouseofCommonsSelectCommitteeonBusiness,InnovationandSkills,forexample,CancerResearchUKstated:‘CancerResearchUKsupportsthegoalsofopenaccess(OA)aswebelievethatmakingtheresultsofresearchwidelyandfreelyavailablecanonlybenefittheresearcheffortandtheeconomy.’16TheorganizationsignalleditspreferenceforthegoldroutebutquestionedwhethercharitiesshouldpayAPCs.ItstatedthatpaymentsofAPCsshouldbecoveredasanindirectcostofresearchalongwithotherinfrastructureandoverheadcostsratherthanaspartofdirectresearchgrants.IntheUK,indirectcostsforcharity-fundedresearcharepaidbygovern-mentviatheCharityResearchSupportFund.SubmittingevidencetothesameSelectCommitteeenquiry,theWellcomeTrustalsocommentedontheimportantissueofthelevelofopennessassociatedwithOAasdefinedinlicences.ItstateditssupportfortheuseoftheCC-BY(CreativeCommonsattribution)pub-licationlicencewhichallowstheunrestrictedreuseofmaterial:‘OurmovetorequireCC-BYlicenceflowsfromourfirmbeliefthatthefullresearchandeconomicbenefitofpublishedresearchwillonlyberealisedwhentherearenorestrictionsonaccessto,andre-useof,thisinformation.’17Itquotedtheexampleoftextminingwhichmaynotalwaysbepermit-tedevenforOAcontentundercertainmorerestrictivelicenceconditions.Theseandotherkeyissueshave,ofcourse,beenwidelydiscussedanddebatedinthegeneralOAliteratureandotherfora.OrganizationsliketheWellcomehavecontrib-utedtothiswiderdebate,includingcommis-sioningearlyresearchonthepotentialcostsofanOAresearchcommunicationsystem18andmorerecentworkmodellingcostsofdifferentapproachestoOA.19ResearchdesignTheresearchreportedherewasdesignedtoaddressanumberofkeyissuesarisingfromtheliteratureaswellascurrentpractice.ItwasaimedatmembersofAMRCandEuropePMCwhowereaskedtorespondonbehalfoftheirorganizations,andtooktheformofanonlinequestionnairedividedintoanumberofsectionscovering:•organizationalpoliciesinrelationtoOA;theresearchreportedherewasdesignedtoaddressanumberofkeyissuesMedicalresearchcharitiesandopenaccess289LEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013•attitudestovariousapproachestotheimplementationofOA;•fundingarrangementsforOA;•challenges,opportunitiesandconcernscre-atedbyOA.Thequestionnaireconsistedofatotalof21questions,althoughnotallquestionsweredesignedtobeansweredbyallrespondentsbecauseofroutingbetweenquestionsdepen-dentonpreviousresponses.Thequestionnairecomprisedacombinationofclosedquestionsintendedtoproducequantitativedataonspecificissues,andopenquestionsdesignedtogeneratequalitativedatafromfree-textcomments.Mandatoryquestionswerekepttoaminimuminordertoencourageasmanyresponsesaspossible.FollowingethicsapprovalgrantedaspartoftheUniversityofSheffieldresearchethicspro-cess,thequestionnairewaspilotedbetween6and11March2013.Pilotingledtoanumberofamendmentsbeingmadetothequestion-nairetoimproveclarityandtoensurethatittookonlybetween10and20minutestocom-plete(dependingontheextenttowhichfree-textcommentswereaddedbyrespondents)inordertomaximizeresponses.Thefinalversionofthequestionnairewasmadepubliclyavail-ablebetween12Marchand16April2013.InvitationstoparticipateweredistributedbyemailbyAMRCandEuropePMCtotheirmembers.Theseincludedaninitialinvitationon12March2013,followedbyareminderon25March2013.FindingsFifty-sixresponsestothesurveywerereceived.Theseincluded50completeresponsesplus6incompleteresponsesbutwhichincludedusabledata.Ofthe56responses,14werefromEuropePMCmembers,12ofthemfromtheUK(11alsobeingAMRCmembers).Thetwonon-UKresponseswereeliminatedfromtheanalysisinordertocreateacoher-entUK-specificresultsset.However,theoneUKnon-AMRCresponsewasincludedintheanalysissinceitcamefromacloselyalliedorganization.Therewere,therefore,atotalof54usableresponsestothequestionnaireasawhole,althoughbecauseofroutingbetweenquestionsandthelownumberofmandatoryquestions,thenumberofresponsesforeachquestionvaried.OApoliciesInresponsetothequestion,‘Doesyourorga-nizationcurrentlyhaveapolicyofencourag-ingorrequiringgrant-holderstomaketheirresearchoutputsopenaccess?’,19ofthe54respondents(35%)reportedthattheydid.Afurther19responded,‘No–butoneislikelytobeintroducedinthenext12months’,whilst14(26%)didnothaveapolicyandreportedthat‘oneisnotlikelytobeintroducedinthenext12months’(Figure1).Seventypercentofrespondentsthereforeeitherhadapolicyalreadyinplaceorexpectedtointroduceoneinthenextyear.The19respondentswithapolicygavedetailsofwhenitcameintoeffect,withdatesrangingfrom2006to2013(Figure2).Thepositionis,however,afluidone.Severalrespondentsstatedtheirorganizationswerelikelytoreviewtheircurrentpolicyinthelightofrecentdevelopments.Otherorganiza-tionscommentedtheyweremonitoringdevel-opmentsandconsideringtheirposition.46respondentsprovidedfiguresfortheirannualresearchspend(seebelow),mostlyintheformofapproximatefiguresfor2011–12.ComparingthesewiththeresponsestothequestiononOApolicy,therewasastrongpositiverelationshipbetweenlargeorganiza-tions(byresearchspend)andthosewithanOApolicy.68%oforganizationsreportingaresearchspendofover£1.5millionperyearhadapolicyinplace,comparedwith22%below£1.5million(χ2=10.797;degreesoffreedom=2;P=0.0045).AllEuropePMCmemberswhorespondedhadanOApolicy(aconditionofEuropePMCmembership)com-paredwith17%ofnon-EuropePMCmembers.Whilstthedetailsofthesepoliciesdifferedbetweenorganizations,mostofthemsharedtwokeyfeaturesincommon.Sixteenofthe19policiesspecifiedthatoutputsshouldbemadeavailableinanopenaccessformwithinsixmonthsofpublication,and15specifiedtheyshouldbedepositedinEuropePMC(orPubMedCentral).Theremainderdidnotspecifyanyallowableembargoordepositionvenue.seventypercentofrespondentsthereforeeitherhadapolicyalreadyinplaceorexpectedtointroduceoneinthenextyear290StephenPinfieldLEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013ComplianceOfthe19respondentswithOApolicieswhocommentedonthemonitoringandmeasur-ingcomplianceofgrantholders,eight(42%)statedtheydidmeasurecompliancewhilstnine(47%)didnot(twodidnotknow).Thosethatdidmeasurecompliancewereabletochoosefromavarietyofsuggestedwaysinwhichtheycheckedcomplianceorspecifyotherapproaches.Themostpopularofthese(bothusedbyfive)werecheckingcompli-anceofarticleslistedinPubMedandcheckingEuropePMC.However,onlyasmallnumberofrespondentswereabletostatespecificlev-elsofcompliance,andinthosecasesmostlyestimatesweregivenwithfigurescommonlybetween20%and40%.OneorganizationwithanestablishedOApolicyquotedfiguresashighas65–70%,andanotherorganizationwiththenewpolicyreportedfullcompliancebutoveraveryshortperiod.Somerespondentsstatedthatthatpolicyhadonlyrecentlycomeintoeffectanditwasthereforetooearlytomeasurecompliance.Otherrespondentsstatedthattheyhadonlyrecentlybeguntomonitorcomplianceorwereplanningtodosointhenearfuture.However,resourceswerereportedtobeamajorcon-straint,withonerespondentcommenting:‘Currently[theorganization]doesnothavethein-houseresourcetomeasurecompli-ance,butitissomethingwearekeenandplantodooverthecomingyear,shouldresourcesallowit.’Ofthe19respondentswithanOApolicy,10(53%)statedthattheirorganizationundertook‘actionstoimprovecompliance’withtheirOApolicy.Awidevarietyofdif-ferentmethodswereused,mostlyfocusedonawareness-raisingandencouragementofauthors.Forexample,eightrespondentsstatedtheywrotetoauthorstoencouragethemtocomply.Otherawareness-raisingapproachesmentionedincludedoutliningtheOApolicyingrantapplicationdocumentsandremind-inggrant-holdersinroutinecorrespondence.However,fewerrespondentsfavouredusingsanctions,withonlyasmallnumberoforga-nizationsstatingtheywerewillingtowith-holdfundinginvariouswaysfromresearchersortheirorganizationsinordertoencouragecompliance.However,resourceswereagainreportedtobeaconcern:‘Wecould,inprinciple,doanyoralloftheotheractionslisted[inthesurvey]toimprovecompliance.Howeverwedonothavetheresources(researchadviceandadministrativeteamtime,andbudget)whichwouldbenecessarytoprovidesup-Figure3.‘Whichofthefollowingdoesyourorganization’spolicyallow?’(n=19).!"##Figure1.‘Doesyourorganizationcurrentlyhaveapolicyencouragingorrequiringgrant-holderstomaketheirresearchoutputsopenaccess?’(n=54).$%$$$$%$$&$$$$$$$!Figure2.‘Whendidyourorganization’spolicycomeintoeffect?’(n=19).resourceswerereportedtobeamajorconstraint292StephenPinfieldLEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013portofthiskindforallofthepublicationsresultingfromtheresearchwefund.’ThereisthenconsiderablevariationinwhetherandhowcharitiesaremonitoringcompliancewiththeirOApoliciesandtheextenttowhichtheyaretakingactiontoimprovecompliancelevels.GreenorgoldOA?MostoftheOApoliciesofrespondentsallowedeither‘green’or‘gold’OA.Ofthe19respondentsreplyingtothisquestioninthesurvey,16allowedgreenand12goldOA,withmostallowingboth(Figure3).Fiverespon-dentsstatedtheyallowedgreenbutnotgold,whilstonlyonereportedallowinggoldbutnotgreen.Fourstatedapreferenceforgoldandoneforgreen,whilstsevenhadnostatedpreference.Onerespondentcommentedthatallowingbothmadeiteasierforgrant-holderstocomplywiththeirpolicy.Anumberofdifferentreasonswerecitedforpreferringgold,includingimmediateOAavailabilityofcontent,supportforawork-ingbusinessmodelanddepositioninEuropePMC:‘Weprefergoldopenaccessasitmeanstheresearchisimmediatelyavailableuponpub-lication,anditalsohelpstransitiontoandsupportamoretransparentbusinessmodelforpublishers.However,allowinggreenaccessasanoptionprovidesmoreflexibil-ityandmaximizesthenumberofjournalsanauthormaychoosetopublishinwhilstremainingcompliantwithourpolicy.’However,evenwheregoldwaspreferred,con-cernwasexpressedregardingresources:‘Goldwouldbeouridealandwewantallgrantholderstoaspiretothis.However,complexityofenforcingthisandcurrentuncertaintyabouthowitwouldbefundedmakesitanimpracticalpolicytoenforce.’‘Inordertopromoteonlygoldaccess,wewouldneedtoconsiderthecostimplica-tions,asweestimateditwouldcost[theorganization]around£300kp.a.–acostthatiscurrentlynotbudgeted.’Theresourceissuewasmentionedbysomeasareasonforpreferringgreen:‘Greenopenaccessrequiresnocostsformakingthecontentopenaccess…itdoesnotrestrictthejournalthattheresearcherpublishesinbutallowsforthecontenttobecomeopenaccessandavailabletoall.Researchersarefreetofollowthegoldpathshouldtheychoosetodoso,butattheirowncost.’Oneorganizationstatedthattheirthinkingongreen-goldbalancemaybereviewedinthelightofrecentUKdevelopments(suchastheRCUKpolicy)whichgavegreaterprominencetoGold:‘Thematterwaslastdiscussedbyour[researchcommittee]in2007.AtthetimeitwasassumedthatthegreenroutetoOAwouldbethemostprevalent.Giventhemorerecentprominenceofgold,wemayneedtorevisitouroriginalpolicy.’PublicationlicencesOnlyoneorganizationsaiditspecifiedparticu-larlicencesforitsgrant-holderstouse:eithertheCreativeCommonsAttributionlicence(CC-BY)orCreativeCommonsAttributionNon-Commerciallicence(CC-BY-NC).Oneorganizationsaiditwasintroducingalicencecondition(CC-BY)inthenearfuturewhereithadfundedanAPC.Anotherorganizationsaiditdidnotspecifyaparticularlicencebutdidrequirecontenttobereusable.However,themajorityofrespondentssaidtheydidnotspecifyaparticularlicence,severalcomment-ingthattherewaslittleawarenessoflicensingissuesintheorganization,forexample:‘Wedonotunderstandenoughaboutthisissueyettointroduceitintoourpolicyatthisstage.’Onerespondentcommentedthattheydidnotseeitasthefunder’sresponsibility:‘Weprovidenoguidanceonthismatter,inourviewthisisamatterfortheauthorandtheiremployinginstitution.’Thelevelofengagementfromcharitiesonthisissueisthencurrentlylow.PublishingcostsOntheissueofpublishingcosts,30(60%)ofthe50respondentswhoansweredtheques-tioneitheroptedfor‘stronglyagree’or‘tendtoagree’withthestatementofprinciplethatthereisthenconsiderablevariationinwhetherandhowcharitiesaremonitoringcompliancewiththeirOApoliciesMedicalresearchcharitiesandopenaccess293LEARNEDPUBLISHINGVOL.26NO.4OCTOBER2013‘thecostofpublishingisacostofresearch’.Five(10%)disagreed,eithertendingtodis-agreeorstronglydisagreeing(Figure4).Onerespondentsummarizedthemostcom-monview:‘Thedisseminationofresearchfindingscanreasonablybeviewedasthefinalstageinaresearchproject–andifthereisacostassociatedwiththis,asthereoftenis,Iwoulderronthesideofconsideringthisalegitimateresearchcost.’Anumberofrespondentscommentedontheimportanceofpublishingresearchresults:‘Theexpectationoffundersandthedutyofresearchersthattheresearchshouldbepub-lished.Notmuchpointotherwise!’However,somerespondentsmadethepointthatthereisanargumentcharitiesshouldnotnecessarilypaycostsofOApublishing,definingthemasindirectcosts(overheadsandinfrastructure)ratherthandirectcostsoftheresearchitself.Severalmadethispointindetail,forexample:‘Peer-reviewedpublicationsareavitalpartofresearchandofferafilterthroughwhichqualityresearchcanbeidentified.Managingsuchaprocessunderstandablyincursacost.Traditionallythecostsofpublishingweresupportedbylibrarysub-scriptionsfundedbygovernment.Withthetrendtowardsgoldopenaccessincreasedcostsforgovernmentarelikelytobeoff-setbyareductioninlibrarysubscriptions.However,charityfundersofresearchwouldexperiencetheincreaseincosts,withnooffset.Asafundraisingcharityweseeadistinctionbetweenthedirectcostsofresearchwhichwecansupport,inlinewithourcharitableobjectives,andtheindirectcostswhichwedonot.Thisdistinctionisalreadyacknowledgedbythegovernmentandwefeelthatthecostsofpublishingshouldfallintothelattercategory.’OnthespecificquestionofwhetherOApub-lishingcostsshouldbeconsideredadirectorindirectcostofresearch,17ofthe49(34%)whoansweredthequestionagreedthatAPCsshouldbeconsideredpartofindirectcosts,withonlyfive(10%)disagreeing.However,therewasconsiderableuncertainty,with18(37%)optingfor,‘neitheragreenordisagree’andnine(18%),‘Donotknow/notapplicable’.Whilesomerespondents(supportingtheviewexpressedabove)stateddirectlythat,‘publica-tionshouldbeseenasaninfrastructurecost’,andthereforenotcoveredbycharityfunders,thiswasnotauniversalview.Onerespondentsummarizedthecontraryview:‘APC’sareclearlyadirectcostofdoingresearch,researchwithoutpublicationisoflimitedvalue.’Othersexpressedamorepragmaticview:‘Ithinkanargumentcouldbemadeeither