Researchers should have a choice
Funding bodies, including government funding agencies, should leave it up to researchers to decide where to publish their results. No such thing as a free lunch
If funding agencies desire the results to be published in an open access format, they should make this financially possible for researchers and their institutions by providing the means to do so. Unfunded mandates put researchers in an unfair position from which they have no proper means to escape. Added value must be financed
As a result, we fully support open access mandates that take into account the economic value of a proven, useful system of ordered, layered and certified scientific knowledge that is currently performed by academic peer-reviewed journals.
Unfunded mandates are not a sustainable route to open access. The question of funding the system of stratified certification must be addressed properly.Springer supports dialogue
Springer is committed to participating in a scholarly, and respectful, debate with all parties concerned with the future of scientific publishing. Our track record speaks for itself: In 2005, we launched Springer Open Choice™ which gives researchers and their institutions the option of deciding, after the completion of the peer-review process, whether to publish in an open access format for a fee, or by using a traditional, subscription-based model.