publicly funded research grants. This is not just a national movement. The European Commission has committed that from 2014 articles produced with funding from “all Horizon 2020 will have to be accessible” and intends of European “60% research articles to be available under open access by 2016”. The OA movement has led to debate about the traditional business model of publishing. Traditionally research results were published in journals to which research institutions, groups and individuals could access the information for a cost, often paying for a license, a subscription or paying on a basis. Since the ‘pay-per-view’ advent of the internet an increasing amount of journal content has become available online, with the majority of journals using digital publishing as a complementary service to their paper versions. Originally, this digital publication was based on the traditional business model of publication, also requiring a licence, subscription or individual payment to access articles. New business models have been adopted by groups such as BioMed Central which publishes over 220 open-access, peer reviewed journals providing articles free at the point of access. The rationale for open access to scientific journal literature is similar to the knowledge transfer rationale of patents: both aim to improve access to research findings. In the case of open access, the argument is posed particularly in relation to publicly funded research, i.e. as is the focus of this thesis. This is based on the argument that the results of publicly funded work should be freely accessible in the public domain an argument which the Finch report claims is and – ‘compelling’ unanswerable’. This further highlights the tensions involved in the ‘fundamentally commercialisation of publicly funded research. A parallel is therefore drawn between open access to research publications and open access to patent information. Changing expectations of academic researchers Traditionally the career progression of scientists has been largely dependent on the quality and quantity of their academic publications. However, other factors such as and patents are increasingly part of the equation. This is a move from ‘impact’ tradition, altering the role of researchers. Owen-Smith and Powell’s interviews with American academic life scientists showed that patents are increasingly accepted as a legitimate activity in academic science and are sometimes viewed as reaffirmations of the originality of their work and contribute to their scientific renown. This implies a
publicly funded research grants. This is not just a national movement. The European Commission has committed that from 2014 “all articles produced with funding from Horizon 2020 will have to be accessible” and intends “60% of European research articles to be available under open access by 2016”. The OA movement has led to debate about the traditional business model of publishing. Traditionally research results were published in journals to which research institutions, groups and individuals could access the information for a cost, often paying for a license, a subscription or paying on a ‘pay-per-view’ basis. Since the advent of the internet an increasing amount of journal content has become available online, with the majority of journals using digital publishing as a complementary service to their paper versions. Originally, this digital publication was based on the traditional business model of publication, also requiring a licence, subscription or individual payment to access articles. New business models have been adopted by groups such as BioMed Central which publishes over 220 open-access, peer reviewed journals providing articles free at the point of access. The rationale for open access to scientific journal literature is similar to the knowledge transfer rationale of patents: both aim to improve access to research findings. In the case of open access, the argument is posed particularly in relation to publicly funded research, i.e. as is the focus of this thesis. This is based on the argument that the results of publicly funded work should be freely accessible in the public domain – an argument which the Finch report claims is ‘compelling’ and ‘fundamentally unanswerable’. This further highlights the tensions involved in the commercialisation of publicly funded research. A parallel is therefore drawn between open access to research publications and open access to patent information. Changing expectations of academic researchers Traditionally the career progression of scientists has been largely dependent on the quality and quantity of their academic publications. However, other factors such as ‘impact’ and patents are increasingly part of the equation. This is a move from tradition, altering the role of researchers. Owen-Smith and Powell’s interviews with American academic life scientists showed that patents are increasingly accepted as a legitimate activity in academic science and are sometimes viewed as reaffirmations of the originality of their work and contribute to their scientific renown. This implies a