Just a quick post to congratulate the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their fabulous new research policy covering both open access & open data.
One of the key things they’ve implemented for 2017 is ZERO TOLERANCE for post-publication embargoes of research. Work MUST be made openly available IMMEDIATELY upon publication to be compliant. No ifs, no buts.
Do any academics want a post-publication embargo on their work, that stops it being shared, read & re-used by the widest readership possible?
Does it benefit readers, patients, policy-makers or practitioners to have a post-publication embargo delaying their access to the very latest research?
Does it benefit research funders themselves to have a post-publication embargo on work they fund?
The only stakeholder that benefits from research funder policies that allow post-publication embargoes preventing free access to research are the legacy publishers. The fact that RCUK, Wellcome Trust and many others pander to these parasitic publishers and their laughably unfit-for-purpose business model is just WRONG and it makes me angry. JUST SAY “NO” TO POST-PUBLICATION EMBARGOES!
It’s high-time that major research funders wrote policies that ask for what WE ALL ACTUALLY WANT, instead of a bullshit compromise that minimises fiscal harm to the multi-billion dollar legacy publishers.
I admire the Gates Foundation. They understand what we all need and they’ve implemented that in a clear and appropriate policy; optimal for readers, researchers, patients, practitioners and policy-makers. We want immediate open access, and we want it NOW! The ball is now in your court Wellcome Trust, make your move!