2. Average cost per paper has a lower standard deviation as the field of endeavour is restricted e.g. just to biomedicine; our portfolio is much wider. One size does not easily fit all.

3. I fully agree that “it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, that should be considered in making funding decisions”, and I am sure that our referees and Panel Members are wise enough to recognise that. Certainly reviewers (including members of REF Panels) need to recognise that a paper is properly seen as a means to an end (dissemination), and not an end in itself (‘another notch on the belt’). A way to go here, possibly.

4. As I said above, it is authors and not Research Councils who decide where to send their manuscripts. Voting with your feet is a powerful weapon, as recent events in the Open Access space (and elsewhere) have demonstrated.

In any case — many thanks for taking the trouble to lay out the current thinking so clearly. That’s very helpful. I am encouraged by much of what you say though I also hear the loud note of caution. I hope nevertheless that the current discussions will forge ahead positively.

I have a few questions/observations:

On the question of funding, although it is a zero-sum game, some of the costs of OA would expect to be off-set by subscription savings. The problem here is that the RCs are not responsible for paying subscriptions, though ultimately the money comes from another public pot. I wonder is there any scope for BIS to take the large view of this and make the necessary budgetary adjustments to manage this situation? That said, I believe it has been estimated that a full move to OA would cost the UK more money in the long run because of our productivity. I’d hope the govt’s renewed commitment to OA might see that as a reasonable cost.

The funding mechanism really does have to be sorted out. I’m glad to hear you acknowledge the difficulties with the present arrangement. Is it not possible (as I believe Wellcome have done) to determine the average cost of publication across your portfolio, budget for that and then pay institutions (with BBSRC grant holders) the funds to cover those costs?

Finally, you make no mention of what I see to be a key part of the Wellcome Trust’s policy – the commitment to ignore IFs in funding decisions and affirm rather that “it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, that should be considered in making funding decision”. In my view this would help to encourage the community of scientists to take up OA options and so improve the dissemination of research. I accept there will be no overnight transition of attitudes but every little helps.