In a report published in July (Scientific Publications: Free for all?), the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee recommended that the British government create a network of institutional repositories (IRs) and mandate all publicly funded researchers to self-archive their published articles in those repositories—thereby making their research accessible to all "free of charge, online." (See the NewsBreak on the report: "British Politicians Call on U.K. Government to Support Open Access; http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16403.)

Arguing that traditional subscription-based publishing is restricting access to research, the committee also called for an independent study into alternative OA publishing models and asked the government to make funds available for researchers to pay to publish in new author-pays OA journals—which make published papers freely available on the Web.

In rejecting all the main recommendations of the report, the U.K. government response—published by the committee on Nov. 8—asserts that the government is "not aware that there are major problems in accessing scientific information" and characterizes the publishing industry as "healthy and competitive."

While saying that it "recognises the potential benefits of institutional repositories and sees them as a significant development worthy of encouragement," the government nevertheless argues that "each institution has to make its own decision about institutional repositories." Consequently, it says, it has "no present intention to mandate Research Council funded researchers to deposit a copy of their published material in institutional repositories."

The government adds that it is "not convinced that the ‘author-pays' model is inherently superior to the current model" and, since its approach is to "facilitate a level playing field," it does not intend to "intervene to support one model or another."

Publishing its reaction alongside the government response, the committee complains: "The Government Response focuses on criticism of the ‘author-pays' publishing model, despite the fact that the Committee's Report did not recommend its wholesale adoption." It adds: "[W]e do not believe that Government should continue to refuse to provide the modest funds necessary to make institutional repositories workable, and to allow the experimentation necessary to properly test the feasibility of the author-pays publishing model."

Calling on the government to "reconsider its position" the committee also accuses it of suppressing the views of its own expert advisory body, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), in order to favor publishing interests over the best interests of the scientific community. Arguing that the U.K. Department of Trade & Industry (DTI)—which coordinated the government response—had pressured JISC into amending its initial response of endorsement for the committee's proposals, the committee says that it is "regrettable that an expert body should feel constrained in carrying out its advisory role, assigned to it by the Government."

The government's main concern appears to be that OA could have a negative impact on the British economy. Pointing out that the majority of revenue from STM publishing comes from exports rather than U.K. sales, "resulting in global subscription revenue of £750 million" (about $1.38 billion), it says the government "would want to avoid placing the U.K. at a disadvantage in a global market."

Complaining that the needs of science are being subordinated to narrow economic interests, Select Committee chairman Ian Gibson responded: "DTI is apparently more interested in kowtowing to the powerful publishing lobby than it is in looking after the best interests of British science."

OA advocates point out that the main recommendation in the committee's report—to mandate self-archiving—would in any case have no financial impact on publishers since, they argue, authors would continue using traditional journals to publish their papers, and libraries would continue subscribing to them.

Publishers, however, welcomed the government's response. Describing it as a triumph of "commonsense over ideology," Blackwell Publishing president Robert Campbell said: "Obviously, we are glad that the government supports a successful industry."

But, the debate is far from over. Indeed, OA has become like the mythical Hydra: every time its head is chopped off, it grows two new heads to replace it. Days before the government response was published, for instance, the U.K.-based Wellcome Trust—the world's largest private funder of medical research—announced plans to introduce a European PubMed Central, and indicated that in the future grantees will be required to make their research freely available on the Web, either via the U.S.-based PubMed Central or the planned European mirror.

And in the wake of the U.K. government's response, pressure is growing on Research Councils UK (RCUK)—through which half (£2.1 billion, or about $3.88 billion) of the U.K.'s publicly funded research is funneled—to implement its own mandate. Emulating the U.S. plan mooted by the NIH, which has proposed that all NIH-funded research be made freely available in PubMed Central, the RCUK could itself require its funded researchers to self-archive their papers.

In fact, says OA advocate Stevan Harnad, RCUK could improve on the NIH plan, since an RCUK mandate would apply not just to biomedical research paid for by one funding agency but "to all RCUK-funded research output, across all disciplines."

Is such a mandate likely? "We are indeed considering the issue of mandating deposit in institutional repositories (and possibly thematic repositories as well)," confirms RCUK policy and support manager StÃÆ'Æ'©phane Goldstein. "[W]e still do not yet have a complete consensus among the eight Research Councils, but we're working hard at reaching a common position over the coming weeks, and I'm sure that we will."

The Select Committee also has a few more tricks up its sleeve. By choosing to publish the government's response alongside a new report (rather than create a "Special Report" as it normally does), it has obliged the government to make a further response.

In the process, it has set the government some specific tasks: to reconsider its position in the light of the Wellcome Trust announcement; to take on board the current European Commission inquiry into scientific publishing (expected to support some of the Committee's findings); and to comment on a number of other responses that the committee has published alongside the government's response, including that from JISC.

With a parliamentary debate on the issue likely, the disgruntled politicians will also have a chance to take the government to task publicly. In short, the committee believes it can still wring concessions out of the U.K. government.

Commenting to the Independent newspaper on the day the government's response was published, Gibson said: "This is a really serious political battle. It is between what's best for the [publishing] industry and what's best for the public."

Meanwhile, in the U.S. there are growing fears that the U.K. government's response could influence the outcome of the NIH proposal. With the deadline for public comment set for Nov. 16, both publishers and OA advocates are currently engaged in frantic last-minute lobbying efforts.