JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  December 2007

JISC-REPOSITORIES December 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

The Dutch Strategy + BENEvolent Synthesis

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:30:06 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (211 lines)

                    ** Cross-Posted **

Below is a very fruitful exchange with Leo Waaijers, of DARE, posted
with permission. Dr. Waaijers has synthesized the Belgian mandate
strategy of Professor Bernard Rentier, Rector of U. Liege in Belgium,
with the Netherlands' DARE strategy. (It now remains for Prof. Rentier
to persuade his fellow rectors in the Low Countries -- and then the rest
of Europe and the world -- to adopt the mandate that he and two other
Belgian universities have already adopted!) -- SH

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "Waaijers, Leo" <Waaijers -- surf.nl>
Cc: Bernard Rentier <brentier -- ulg.ac.be>,
Subject: RE: The Dutch Strategy + BENEvolent Synthesis

Dear Leo,

I think your proposed synthesis below is splendid, optimal:

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Leo Waaijers (DARE) wrote:

> In my opinion the following model could serve both Belgium and the
> Netherlands.
>
> 1. The institute mandates the posting of the metadata of
> publications in its IR either directly or indirectly e.g. via its CRIS.
>
> 2. The institute mandates the posting of the publication in its IR.
> It's at the discretion of the institute whether the deposit is
> the post-print or the pdf version.
>
> 3. The IR manager (in general the library) controls the quality of
> the metadata; this is imperative for interoperability.
>
> 4. The author determines the embargo period. It's either (a) zero =
> immediate open access, (b) a short time = delayed open access, (c) the
> Walt Disney period = about 70 years.
>
> 5. All open access publications have a proper license, i.e. one that
> allows their reuse with attribution (e.g. the Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 Licence)
>
> 6. The search interface has a document supply button which either
> forwards the request to the author or to the library, at the authors
> discretion.
>
> What do you think?

I think this should go directly from your lips to the godhead's ears --
not just the universities and research funders in Belgium and the
Netherlands, but worldwide!

(By the way, apart from the further elaboration of the postprint/PDF
options, your synthesis is virtually identical with:

     Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
     http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html

I also think some care needs to be exercised with 5, the CC license: If
the author already has a normal copyright transfer agreement with a
Green publisher -- i.e., one that formally endorses immediate OA
self-archiving -- then there is no need for a CC license. A CC license
is of course always welcome and desirable too, but, like the PDF,
it should on no account be allowed to become a sticking point for OA
deposit itself.)

Now, having formulated the optimal self-archiving mandate for the
Netherlands, are you able to get it adopted, as Bernard Rentier is
doing in Belgium? (Bernard now has three of the Belgian Universities
committed to it, and will be recommending it to the rectors of all
European Universities.)

Best wishes,

Ever the Impatient Archivangelist,

Stevan

> Leo.
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>

> Dear Stevan,
>
> To find out whether it is possible to overcome the distance between
> Liege and the Netherlands we first have to measure it.
>
> I don't think there is much distance between the two copyright approaches.
> In both cases the author needs permission from the publisher before making
> his/her article open access (OA). A big difference however is the version
> that is aimed at. In Liege it is the author's accepted final draft
> ('post-print'), in the Netherlands it is the published pdf version. (Both
> of us have exchanged the pros and cons of these two approaches more than
> once, so I won't repeat them here. Maybe we could agree on "the best
> version that can be made available".)
>
> In that case there are still some operational differences. The first one
> is the mandate. Insofar as it concerns metadata, the difference is a
> negligible one, in my opinion. In order to be visible in accounting
> documents (e.g. the annual report of the university) Dutch authors have
> to register the metadata of their publications in the institutional
> research information system (CRIS) and this system is linked to the
> institutional repository. In effect, this means an operational mandate.
> However, the Dutch metadata pertain to the officially published pdf-version
> as informal versions do not count for annual reports, RAE's etc.
>
> But the real difference concerns the publication itself. In Liege its
> posting in the IR is mandated whereas in the Netherlands this is
> optional. However, this is facilitated by a so called upload button
> which makes posting a one click operation. Further, Liege circulates all
> the metadata whereas DAREnet only harvests metadata of openly accessible
> publications. (This sometimes makes growth comparisons of repositories
> somewhat tricky.) Liege compensates for the non-open access publications with
> a document supply [semi-automatised "email eprint request"] button.
>
> So, in my opinion the following model could serve both Belgium and the
> Netherlands.
>
> 1. The institute mandates the posting of the metadata of
> publications in its IR, either directly or indirectly e.g. via its CRIS.
>
> 2. The institute mandates the posting of the publication in its IR.
> It's at the discretion of the institute whether the deposit is the post-print
> or pdf version.
>
> 3. The IR manager (in general the library) controls the quality of
> the metadata; this is imperative for interoperability.
>
> 4. The author determines the embargo period. It's either (a) zero =
> immediate open access, (b) a short time = delayed open access, (c) the
> Walt Disney period = about 70 years.
>
> 5. All open access publications have a proper license, i.e. one
> that allows their reuse with attribution (e.g. the Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 Licence)
>
> 6. The search interface has a document supply button which either
> forwards the request to the author or to the library, at the authors
> discretion.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Leo.
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>
> Van: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Aan: Waaijers, Leo
>
> Dear Leo,
>
> Thank you for the very frank and forthright update. It still leaves the
> Dutch Strategy as a very powerful one, but not powerful enough to
> overcome something that (alas) seems to be universal -- which is that it
> is not possible to get a high enough proportion of annual output
> self-archived without a mandate.
>
> Bernard Rentier, Rector of University of Liege, has taken the lead for
> Europe on University Green OA mandates. He not only has one for Liege,
> and, he announced at the London UUK PVCs meeting 2 days ago, also for
> Belgium's two other major universities shortly, but, with EurOpenScholar
> (and possibly with help from the UUK PVCs, but of that I am not at all
> sure) Bernard now potentially has the ear of all the European university
> rectors and VCs. Let both the DARE and DRIVER join forces with him,
> marrying a policy of IRs, Dutch incentives, metrics *and* mandates.
>
> It is only while we keep waiting and hoping that something less than
> a mandate will work, some day, that we are really losing time. Please,
> let's put all our collective weight behind mandates, and we shall have
> mandates. And the Dutch Strategy will ensure that the mandates work,
> and work quickly.
>
> Bernard's strategy is simple, and it's mostly carrot rather than stick:
> Simply link record-keeping and research assessment to IR deposit: The
> data must be deposited in the IR in order to be taken into account. It
> need not be deposited in Open Access if you are worried; you may deposit
> in Closed Access. But to be credited and assessed, you must deposit...
>
> What do you think: With Bernard's help, can the Dutch Rectors be won
> over?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stevan
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
>
>> Hi Stevan,
>
>> Currently, I cannot provide an analysis of the present growth of DAREnet
>> in terms of publication date. DAREnet is run by the Academy and,
>> although I have asked them to make such an analysis more than once, they
>> seem to have other priorities.
>>
>> However, I could count the total content of DAREnet per year because the
>> advanced search service offers this option. Then it turns out that 2005
>> is the best year so far relative to our national production. It is about
>> 25%. For the years 2006 and 2007 the current figures are roughly 20% and
>> 10% respectively. Of course, these figures will still grow over time but
>> it is unlikely that they will reach the claimed 50%.
>>
>> I will keep trying to produce better analyses (per institute, per
>> discipline) in due course.
>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Leo.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager