Australian open access advocates have demanded a post-election purge of overpriced science, giving the next education minister three years to change the research publishing paradigm.

Lobby groups say that in the space of a decade, Australia has stumbled from being a ¡°world leader¡± in research access ¨C armed with a coast-to-coast system of institutional repositories ¨C to an international laggard.

The two groups say that fair access to research outputs would be ¡°a realistic and significant accomplishment¡± for a new or reappointed minister, and that recent events provide a platform to ¡°catalyse a discussion on how Australia can match the rest of the world¡±.

These developments include recent reports by the Productivity Commission advisory body and a House of Representatives standing committee, as well as the global spread of Europe¡¯s Plan S open access initiative.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The two groups, the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG) and Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), have released a joint??on the eve of Australia¡¯s 18 May federal election. It says that access to scholarly research is at a ¡°stalemate¡± because of tensions between the needs of research institutions, which want their research disseminated as widely as possible, and commercial publishers that ¡°primarily serve the needs of their shareholders¡±.

¡°There is no overarching strategy to ensure a coherent approach to open scholarship. The various Australian initiatives often overlap. No one body is responsible for coordination; nor is there any dedicated funding for a strategic approach. The opportunity and imperative for action is now,¡± the statement says.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The statement chides the incumbent Coalition government for having failed to produce a national open access policy two years after accepting a Productivity Commission recommendation that such a policy was needed.

And in a nod to the opposition Labor party¡¯s pledge to review post-school education if it wins the election, the statement says open scholarship should be included in the terms of reference ¡°for any post-election inquiries¡±.

It says that despite open access requirements imposed by the main research funding agencies and about half of universities, just 32 per cent of journal articles submitted to last year¡¯s??evaluation were freely available.

The country¡¯s universities pay more than A$280 million (?150 million) a year to give staff access to academic outputs, the statement adds. When health, government and industry bodies are factored in, the national subscription bill is incalculable because ¡°there is no national data source for this¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The statement says a cross-sectoral body should be formed to develop and implement a national action plan for open scholarship within three years. The task would include mapping the Australian publishing landscape, scoping global best practice, commissioning a cost-benefit analysis and making recommendations on policy, actions and funding.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com