“It is an enormous challenge for OASPA, as an organisation with nearly 150 members, to give a group response that can address specific points within the policy consultation, such as the level of challenge in complying, financial implications, or when the policy should take effect, for example. Our members represent a wide diversity of open access models: some are fully open access but would like to see a more level playing field; some are small and perhaps not able to quickly implement new technical standards; some are actively transitioning to open access but are constrained in the speed by which that can happen; and some fully open access members may be in disciplines which don’t see the same funding and infrastructure support and development as others.  

We value the diversity of models and approaches to open access within our membership and we strive to help ensure a landscape where this variety of approaches can exist together, giving researchers choice and flexibility in where they can openly share their work. We have gathered feedback from our members and it is clear that all OASPA members are committed to advancing open access. However, they are at different points along a spectrum and are following different routes to a future in which open is the predominant model of publication. This makes it difficult to provide short and singular responses to many of the questions posed in the UKRI consultation.

There are overarching principles and standards that OASPA sets as an organisation and to which members agree we can aspire to, even if there are varying degrees to which members commit to all of those things now. The criteria and values of OASPA have always been to set a ‘gold standard’ to aim for, with openness, transparency and integrity being at the core.  These are therefore the things we, as the only publishing association specifically dedicated to open access, ask you to prioritise when setting any open access policy: …”

“It is an enormous challenge for OASPA, as an organisation with nearly 150 members, to give a group response that can address specific points within the policy consultation, such as the level of challenge in complying, financial implications, or when the policy should take effect, for example. Our members represent a wide diversity of open access models: some are fully open access but would like to see a more level playing field; some are small and perhaps not able to quickly implement new technical standards; some are actively transitioning to open access but are constrained in the speed by which that can happen; and some fully open access members may be in disciplines which don’t see the same funding and infrastructure support and development as others.  

We value the diversity of models and approaches to open access within our membership and we strive to help ensure a landscape where this variety of approaches can exist together, giving researchers choice and flexibility in where they can openly share their work. We have gathered feedback from our members and it is clear that all OASPA members are committed to advancing open access. However, they are at different points along a spectrum and are following different routes to a future in which open is the predominant model of publication. This makes it difficult to provide short and singular responses to many of the questions posed in the UKRI consultation.

There are overarching principles and standards that OASPA sets as an organisation and to which members agree we can aspire to, even if there are varying degrees to which members commit to all of those things now. The criteria and values of OASPA have always been to set a ‘gold standard’ to aim for, with openness, transparency and integrity being at the core.  These are therefore the things we, as the only publishing association specifically dedicated to open access, ask you to prioritise when setting any open access policy: …”