 |
 |
** Cross-Posted ** [See fully hyperlinked version: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/688-guid.html ] Professor Henk Schmidt, Rector of Erasmus University, Rotterdam, in an interview http://bit.ly/8098go about Open Access conducted by Leo Waaijers, has announced that he proposes to adopt a Green Open Access self-archiving mandate for Erasmus University's Institutional Repository, RePub: HS: "I intend obliging our researchers to circulate their articles publicly, for example no more than six months after publication... if possible in collaboration with publishers via the 'Golden Road' and otherwise without the publishers via the 'Green Road'... [We] can’t just oblige researchers to publish in Open Access journals. It has not yet been established that there are enough prestigious Open Access journals, but – until there are – prescribing the 'Green Road' seems to me an excellent idea... even though it’s a bit of a problem that this will lead to two versions of the article being circulated." This is excellent news, but let me dispel the misapprehension that it will entail even a "bit of a problem": Professor Schmidt states, quite rightly, that since most journals are not Gold OA (and especially few of the top journals are Gold OA), universities (and funders) cannot achieve OA by obliging their authors to publish in Gold OA journals. However, as Professor Schmidt notes, universities (and funders) can require (mandate) that their authors make their articles Green OA by depositing them in their institutional OA repositories (of which every Dutch university now has one) immediately upon publication -- allowing an embargo on setting access to the deposit for a maximal permissible interval (say, 6 months) for those journals that do not yet already endorse immediate OA. (63% of journals already do endorse immediate OA, and that includes virtually all the top journals. And 79 institutions, 18 departments and 42 research funders worldwide already mandate Green OA). All of this is extremely welcome, and spot-on. I would add only that the difference between the author's peer-reviewed, revised, and accepted final draft (the postprint) and the publisher's version-of- record (PDF) is negligible for active researchers (especially those for whom OA is really intended, namely, the many would-be users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access to the journal in which an article happens to be published); moreover, most researchers are already quite accustomed to receiving and using prepublication hard copies (and, lately, email versions) of final drafts rather than waiting for the journal to appear. Professor Schmidt adds: HS: "It may well take a year before your article appears in a journal. But I do expect the time pressure to increase. In that case, circulating your work by uploading it to a repository could speed things up." As noted, OA is not merely for the sake of earlier access during the publication lag (most journals now offer access to the online version immediately, and even to the author's final draft -- but to subscribers only). The primary motivation for OA is the need for access to journals to which the would-be user's institution cannot afford to subscribe. HS: "I don’t... upload [my articles to] the university’s repository... I had never even consulted the repository. I did try it once a few weeks ago and realised that none of my publications are in there. It was just too awkward, and I’ll now probably wait quite a long time before I try it again. I’m just too busy for this kind of experimentation. It really does need to be made a lot simpler... it would make a difference if it were... easy to deposit your PDF... Either that or somebody has to do it for you. [Our researchers] are of course used to registering the metadata in Metis. But it would make a difference if it were then easy to deposit your PDF..." This passage is a bit ambiguous as to whether Professor Schmidt is referring here to (1) consulting the repository, in search of an article, as a user, or to (2) depositing one's own articles in the repository, as an author. (1) Consultation: Institutional repositories (IRs) can be consulted directly (for institution-internal record-keeping, monitoring or showcasing purposes) but that is certainly not the primary purpose of either IRs or OA. The way most OA IR deposits are consulted by potential users is not by going to each individual IR to search! The IRs are OAI-compliant, hence interoperable, and hence they are harvested by central search services (such as OAIster, Base, Scirus, Scopus, PubMed, Citeseer, Celestial, and even Google Scholar) so they become jointly searchable by users as if they were all in one and the same global repository. (2) Deposit: To find out how quick and easy deposit really is, one must actually have deposited an article in an IR. It is certainly as simple as depositing the metadata in Metis -- moreover, software can easily import/export directly from one to the other (Metis to IR or IR to Metis), automatically. So the (few) keystrokes only ever need to be done once. Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2005) "Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-Archiving." (It's fine to have the keystrokes done by proxy -- by an assistant, a student, a librarian -- if an institution wishes, but it is not clear that there is even the need to do so: Do researchers need proxies to deposit in Metis? It's virtually the same thing.) Nor is the publisher's PDF needed. The author's final draft is what needs to be deposited, and the author has that at his fingertips as soon as a final draft is accepted for publication (i.e., when no more revisions are required). Metadata are metadata, and the same metadata are needed for OA IR deposit as for Metis (author, title, date, journal, etc.) registration. The publisher's PDF is both unnecessary and undesirable (because it has more access restrictions than the author's refereed. accepted final draft.) Moreover, the most successful university deposit mandates (such as the mandate at University of Liège) have combined the functions of the OA IR and (their equivalent of) Metis: The form that the deposit mandate takes is that it is in the IR that the researcher must deposit for performance review! Here is how the Rector of U Liege, Professor Bernard Rentier, worded the Liège mandate: -- deposit in ORBi will be mandatory as soon as the article is accepted by the journal -- starting October 1st, 2009, only those references introduced in ORBi will be taken into consideration as the official list of publications accompanying any curriculum vitae for all evaluation procedures 'in house' (designations, promotions, grant applications, etc.) -- Wherever publisher agreement conditions are fulfilled, the author will authorize setting access to the deposit as open access -- For closed access deposits, the institutional repository will have an EMAIL EPRINT REQUEST BUTTON which allows the author to fulfill individual eprint requests. In response to the question "If uploading material to a repository were actually made a lot simpler, would they all do it, or would something else have to happen?" Professor Schmidt replied: HS: "I think it will be necessary to impose an obligation so as to get them used to it. But if it were really simple and it took only a single action to upload the publication to the repository and register it in Metis for the annual report, then they’d come on board." This reply is spot-on, on all counts: Researchers will not deposit unless it is mandated, but if it is mandated, they will indeed deposit (95%), and the vast majority will do so willingly (81%). What Professor Schmidt may not have realized is that deposit is already easy, just a few minutes worth of keystrokes, and virtually identical to the keystrokes for registering in Metis. So all that needs to be done is to mandate deposit in the Erasmus IR, as the prerequisite for performance evaluation, and automatically export the metadata from the IR to Metis! All universities considering the adoption of a Green Open Access mandate are urges to join EOS (Enabling Open Scholarship). The chairman of the EOS Board is Professor Bernard Rentier (Rector of the University of Liège), and the Coordinator is Dr. Alma Swan (of Southampton and Key Perspectives Inc). These are the two most far- sighted and dynamic leaders in the international OA mandate movement, and with their help university IRs and mandates will be the most effective they can be: -- EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS) is an organisation for universities and research institutions worldwide. The organisation is both an information service and a forum for raising and discussing issues around the mission of modern universities and research institutions, particularly with regard to the creation, dissemination and preservation of research findings -- The aim of EOS is to further the opening up of scholarship and research that we are now seeing through the growing open access, open education, open science and open innovation movements. Stevan Harnad American Scientist Open Access Forum