Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Peter Suber summarises the current state of Open Access in the UK well when he asks whether recent reports and policies are capitalizing on the favourable Open Access climate in the UK.(1)
The Finch Report is to be welcomed for casting a spotlight on Open Access, but as highlighted by the response from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Europe, the report also raises some questions. In recommending a hybrid form of Gold open access, there is a risk that we may achieve Open Access via a more costly and time-consuming route.(2) Pure Gold open access should be the target. But further, it should not be the only one.
Green open access forms a crucial bridge to Open Access, as well as a vital technological step forward in order to integrate and enhance access to information. The Repositories Support Project is assisting institutions in order to realise this vision.(3) As Suber highlights, Green and Gold open access must work in harmony to achieve a successful, inexpensive and timely shift towards open access on a local, national and international level.
Suber highlights the cost of conversion to Open Access, but we are minded to remember the savings open access would bring. The Houghton Report (2009) notes that Open Access could save Higher Education in the UK £80 million a year, and could achieve far greater national system savings.(4)
There is real momentum in the UK where open access is concerned – we just need to make sure that this momentum is channeled in the right direction.
1. Suber P. Ensuring open access for publicly funded research BMJ 2012;345:e5184, August 2012
2. SPARC Europe’s response to the Finch Report: A thumbs up for Open Access, but an expensive way of getting there. http://sparceurope.org/sparc-europe-response-to-the-finch-report/ July 2012. Accessed 13th August 2012
3. Repositories Support Project. http://www.rsp.ac.uk. Accessed 13th August 2012.
4. Houghton J, Rasmussen B, Sheehan P, Oppenheim C, Morris A, Creaser C, Greenwood H, Summers M, Gourley A. Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits JISC EI-ASPM Project. A report to the Joint Information Systems Committee. Jan 2009
Competing interests:
No competing interests
13 August 2012
Karin R Purshouse
Junior Doctor
Oxford University Hospitals Trust
John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU
Re: Ensuring open access for publicly funded research
Peter Suber summarises the current state of Open Access in the UK well when he asks whether recent reports and policies are capitalizing on the favourable Open Access climate in the UK.(1)
The Finch Report is to be welcomed for casting a spotlight on Open Access, but as highlighted by the response from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Europe, the report also raises some questions. In recommending a hybrid form of Gold open access, there is a risk that we may achieve Open Access via a more costly and time-consuming route.(2) Pure Gold open access should be the target. But further, it should not be the only one.
Green open access forms a crucial bridge to Open Access, as well as a vital technological step forward in order to integrate and enhance access to information. The Repositories Support Project is assisting institutions in order to realise this vision.(3) As Suber highlights, Green and Gold open access must work in harmony to achieve a successful, inexpensive and timely shift towards open access on a local, national and international level.
Suber highlights the cost of conversion to Open Access, but we are minded to remember the savings open access would bring. The Houghton Report (2009) notes that Open Access could save Higher Education in the UK £80 million a year, and could achieve far greater national system savings.(4)
There is real momentum in the UK where open access is concerned – we just need to make sure that this momentum is channeled in the right direction.
1. Suber P. Ensuring open access for publicly funded research BMJ 2012;345:e5184, August 2012
2. SPARC Europe’s response to the Finch Report: A thumbs up for Open Access, but an expensive way of getting there. http://sparceurope.org/sparc-europe-response-to-the-finch-report/ July 2012. Accessed 13th August 2012
3. Repositories Support Project. http://www.rsp.ac.uk. Accessed 13th August 2012.
4. Houghton J, Rasmussen B, Sheehan P, Oppenheim C, Morris A, Creaser C, Greenwood H, Summers M, Gourley A. Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits JISC EI-ASPM Project. A report to the Joint Information Systems Committee. Jan 2009
Competing interests: No competing interests