There have already been joint publisher/repository initiatives such as PIRUS/COUNTER that deal with this situation. See http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/pals3/pirus.aspx

"The aim of this project is to develop COUNTER-compliant usage reports at the individual article level that can be implemented by any entity (publisher, aggregator, IR, etc.,) that hosts online journal articles and will enable the usage of research outputs to be recorded, reported and consolidated at a global level in a standard way."

Sent from my iPhone

On 14 Mar 2013, at 21:19, "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:


On 2013-03-14, at 1:13 AM, Nick Thieberger <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

But what if the article is in an OA journal that would like to have the hit count for
downloads from its site? Is there scope for the mandate to cover only non-OA
journal articles perhaps?

That would be an exceedingly bad solution, for authors, for their institutions
for their research and for OA.

And institutions would lose a simple, natural, powerful and uniform way to monitor
mandate compliance by their authors.

And what's more important: hit/download counts for authors, for their own articles,
and for their institutions, or hit/download counts for publishers' sites?

But in any case there's a simple (though silly) compromise:

All articles (whether subscription or Gold, emargoed or not) must be immediately
deposited in the author's institutional repository.

Where the author either wishes to comply with a non-OA publisher's embargo
on Green OA, or with a Gold-OA publisher's desire to have hit/download counts
for its site, access to the deposit need not be made OA (until the embargo
elapses or until the author tires of accommodating publishers' importunate
nonsense).

Stevan Harnad


Nick Thieberger
Editor
Language Documentation & Conservation Journal
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/


On 14 March 2013 11:16, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Full Text: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/994-.html

Executive Summary: The proposed HEFCE/REF Open Access [OA] mandate<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/news/news/2013/open_access_letter.pdf> -- that in order to be eligible for REF, the peer-reviewed final draft of all journal articles must be deposited in the author’s institutional repository immediately upon publication, with embargoes applicable only to the date at which the article must be made OA – is excellent, and provides exactly the sort of complement required by the RCUK OA mandate. It ensures that authors deposit immediately and institutionally and it recruits their institutions to monitor and ensure compliance.
      For journal articles, no individual or disciplinary exceptions or exemptions to the immediate-deposit are needed, but embargo length can be adapted to the discipline or even to exceptional individual cases.
      Embargo length is even more important for open data, and should be carefully and flexibly adapted to the needs not only of disciplines and individuals, but of each individual research project.
      Requiring monograph OA if the author does not wish to provide it is not reasonable, but perhaps many or most monograph authors would not mind depositing their texts as Closed Access.


--
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f



--
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f