** Apologies for Cross-Posting **
See also:
Harnad, Stevan (2005) The OA Policy of Southampton University, UK:
the "Keystroke" Strategy [Putting the Berlin Principle into Practice:
the Southampton Keystroke Policy] . Delivered at Berlin 3 Open Access:
Progress in Implementing the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to
Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, University of Southampton
(UK). http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00003574/
There is no need to wait for governmental OA mandates.
University OA mandates are natural extensions of universities' existing
record-keeping, asset management, and performance-assessment policies.
They complement research-funder OA mandates, and are the most efficient
and productive way to monitor and credit compliance and fulfillment
for both. Australia's Arthur Sale has done the most work on this. Please
read what he has to say:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:32:33 +1100
From: Arthur Sale <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
The evidence is quite clear that advocacy does not work by itself, and never
has worked anywhere. To repeat the bleeding obvious once again: depositing
in repositories is avoidable work under a voluntary regime, and like all
avoidable work it will be avoided by most academics, even if perceived to be
in their best interests, and even if the work is minor. The work needs to be
(a) required and (b) integrated into the work pattern of researchers, so it
becomes the norm. This is the purpose of mandates - to make it clear to
researchers that they are expected to do this work.
My research and published papers show that mandates do work, and they take a
couple of years for the message to sink in. Enforcement need only be a light
touch - reporting to heads of departments for example. See
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/ and
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html.
At the risk of boring some, may I point to a similar case in Australia. All
universities are required to produce an annual return to the Australian
Government of publications in the previous year in the categories of
refereed journal articles, refereed conference papers, books, and book
chapters. The universities make this known to their staff (a mandate), and
they all fill out forms and provide photocopies of the works. The workload
is considerably more than depositing a paper in a repository. The scheme has
been going for many years and is regarded as part of the academic routine.
The data is used by Government to determine part of the university block
grant. The result is near 100% compliance.
What I am doing in Australia is pressing for this already existing mandate
to be extended to the repositories. If the researcher deposits in the
repository, and the annual return is automatically derived from the
repository, then (a) the researcher wins because it takes him/her less time,
(b) it takes the administrators less time as the process is automated and
only needs to be audited, and (c) the repository delivers its usual benefits
for those with eyes to see. All we need is for the research office to
promulgate such a policy in each university. It is in their own interests as
well as the university's.
Arthur
Swan, A. and Brown, S. (2005) Open access self-archiving:
An author study. JISC Technical Report, Key Perspectives Inc.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/
Sale, Arthur (2006) Researchers and institutional
repositories, in Jacobs, Neil, Eds. Open Access: Key
Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, chapter 9,
pages 87-100. Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited.
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/257/
Sale, A. The Impact of Mandatory Policies on
ETD Acquisition. D-Lib Magazine April 2006,
12(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/april2006-sale
Sale, A. Comparison of content policies for institutional
repositories in Australia. First Monday, 11(4), April 2006.
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/index.html
Sale, A. The acquisition of open access research
articles. First Monday, 11(9), October 2006.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html
Sale, A. (2007) The Patchwork Mandate
D-Lib Magazine 13 1/2 January/February
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/sale/01sale.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2007 6:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] OA in Europe suffers a
> setback
>
> I think there is also a role for individual Universities' research offices
to draw attention
> to their faculty of requirements imposed by funding agencies.
>
> Charles
>
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Head
> Department of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509 223053
> e mail [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Talat Chaudhri [tac]
> Sent: 27 November 2007 15:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
>
> Hi,
>
> To be clear, we will seek a university mandate in Aberystwyth, but expect
that
> compliance will only follow if backed up by adequate and ongoing advocacy.
I have
> also seen this morning a report of only 4% of mandates succeeding, so I
feel that I
> am receiving rather mixed messages on this. I am not sure that lobbying
parliaments
> to force funding bodies to comply is the best first step, since, as you
pointed out
> yourself, funding bodies are increasingly going in this direction
themselves (in Britain,
> anyway), so it is clear that developing a voluntary code works to this
extent.
> However, despite the six out of seven funding bodies requiring green OA,
we do not
> yet see substantial compliance from academics as a result. We now need a
growth in
> awareness amongst the authors, as well as among the funders. In short,
inclusivity
> and rewards tend to breed co-operation, whereas mere legal directives are
generally
> less well received. So the mandate from Brussels might not actually have
changed the
> immediate situation much, except perhaps in terms of publicity.
>
> I take the point that not all research is funded, as I come from an arts
background
> myself, where it is less frequently so. Here the need for advocacy is even
stronger, as
> we have no carrot to offer except web hits. On the other hand, we can
hope, as you
> point out, that the new metrics system will offer a greater carrot, if it
lives up to
> expectations and if it takes OA archiving properly into account. How this
system will
> work has been left to some extent deliberately unclear.
>
> I feel that the position of OA repositories is not yet strong enough to
deliver our
> message adequately to legislators, which may be the reason why the
initiative in the
> EU Parliament failed. As very few repository managers are full time, often
engaged in
> other library or IT work, professional representation remains weak. At a
recent
> UKCoRR meeting, only three members (where roughly half the total members
were
> present) were full-time, including myself.
>
> In answer to the reply made by Prof. Charles Oppenheim, I reiterate my
case study of
> a member of staff here being unaware that the funding body for his
research required
> OA archiving, in which he would have failed because he did not read the
agreement
> and therefore risked losing further grants. Clearly funding bodies can't
penalise the
> vast number of academics in his position at the outset without engaging in
some
> publicity and advocacy themselves in the beginning. They can usefully give
the
> impression that they will do so, however, as it may in any event advance
the cause of
> OA.
>
> To summarise, we are all approaching the issue from much the same point of
view,
> but it is jumping the gun to think we can find a simple legal solution out
of the box
> without doing the necessary work in talking to our audience first. Yes,
something
> useful could have been done in Brussels, possibly. However, not enough
ground work
> has been done, so I reiterate that the time is *not* in fact ripe as
suggested. Most
> repositories are embryonic, without proper policy or software frameworks,
some with
> almost no content on which to build. We need to act in our own
universities by going
> out and speaking to the academic staff, not spend increasing amounts of
time
> discussing the niceties of the matter here, fiddling while Rome burns. If
some of you
> wish to spend your time lobbying parliaments instead, there is room for
all kinds of
> contributions. However, we cannot expect everybody to do so, without any
kind of
> professional representation.
>
> In the meantime, for my own small part, I will go back to advocacy, and
handling the
> latest submissions in my repository, which on a collective basis, between
us all, will
> exponentially drive the growth of OA repositories. As you say, Stevan, it
is a matter of
> making sure that the keystrokes are actually made.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Talat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 27 November 2007 14:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
>
> The law in question here is simply whether the EU (or US) government
requires the
> EU (or US) governmental funding agencies to require (Green) OA
self-archiving as a
> condition for receiving funding.
>
> The government *can* require that. And compliance (by the funding
> agencies) is enforceable. Compliance by fundees depends on whether they
wish to be
> funded. Six of the seven UK funding agencies, the Wellcome Trust, and
other funders
> already require OA self-archiving.
>
> In addition, a growing number of universities is requiring it too.
> Alma Swan's author surveys predicted that 95% researchers would comply
with such
> mandates, over 80% of them willingly, and Arthur Sale's actual data on
university OA
> self-archiving mandate compliance bear out those predictions.
>
> University mandates are needed too -- and they are on the way too (see
Prof.
> Rentier's activities in Europe, and keep your eye out for what UUK may
shortly be
> doing in the UK).
>
>> However, we have already encountered academics under such financially
>> dependent mandates who did not realise this, and without advocacy on
>> our part would apparently have been penalised in future.
>>
>> All this simply shows that the carrot is always more effective than
> the
>> stick. This should be obvious to anyone who has been involved in
>> education. You can, as the saying goes, take a horse to water, but you
>> can't make it drink.
>
> The carrot is already in place, and it is called research impact metrics.
> Studies are repeatedly showing that OA dramatically enhances research
impacts, and
> research impact is what research funders such as HECFE -- as well as
university
> research performance reviews -- are measuring and rewarding.
>
> Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research
> Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics (in press) and Proceedings of
> 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics
> and Informetrics 11(1), 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas,
> D. and Moed, H. F., Eds. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0703131
>
> Harnad, S. (2005) Making the case for web-based self-archiving.
> Research Money 19(16). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11534/
>
> Harnad, S. (2006) Self-archiving should be mandatory. Research
> Information. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12738/
>
>> Brussels will have to deal with OA when the time is ripe. Cheers,
>
> The time is ripe, and it is being dealt with all over the planet. The only
question about
> Brussels is whether it will be one of the leaders or one of the followers.
>
> Stevan Harnad
> American Scientist Open Access Forum
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-For
> um.html
>
> Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive Science
> Institut des sciences cognitives Electronics & Computer Science
> Universite du Quebec a Montreal University of Southampton
> Montrel, Quebec Highfield,
> Southampton
> Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United
> Kingdom
> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
>> Behalf Of Thomas Krichel
>> Sent: 27 November 2007 10:27
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
>>
>> N. Miradon writes
>>
>>> Thus are battles lost.
>>
>> How come? Academics have to make their work openly accessible to
>> make open access work. Waiting for bureaucrats to act first is just
>> wasting time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>> RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
>> skype: thomaskrichel
>>
|
