 |
 |
Dear All, There is a simple and effective way avoid trying to endlessly navigate this ceaselessly changing thicket of trying to comply with arbitrary publisher policies: The ID/OA (Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) mandate completely moots all this publisher double-talk: ID/OA<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html> plus the Repository's Button <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268511/>: *1. author's peer-reviewed final draft* (not publisher's version-of-record) *2. deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication* (but OA need not be immediate; implement Button to tide over research needs during any publisher embargo) * * *3. in author's institutional repository* (not institution-externally: central services harvest) One uniform mandate, to be adopted by all institutions *and funders*, that takes publishers out of the loop altogether. That's why ID/OA was designed. Let me illustrate by showing how it applies to and resolves each of the points raised below: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear all,**** > > This is an email to attempt to summarise a wide-ranging talk I gave to a > Copyright Workshop held by the CAUL Australasian Institutional Repository > Support Service (CAIRSS). Based loosely on the idea of ‘complying with > funding mandates’ I simply mentioned a series of items that I have > discovered recently that I thought was interesting in this area. It may be > of interest to you.**** > Separate agreements between publishers & funders**** > > Some publishers will only allow green OA (or OA at all) to researchers > under a mandate if the funding body has come to a ‘separate agreement’ with > the publisher. > Note that this does not apply to institutional mandates. The simple way for a funder to moot it is to require *institutional deposit* rather than institution-external deposit, > **** > > • Elsevier – Researchers can place works into a repository but > not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional > repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a > specific agreement with the publisher > Mooted by ID/OA. Both institutions and funders mandate institutional deposit and *neither institution nor funder negotiates anything (except subscription prices)** with the publisher.* > **** > > • Wiley Blackwell – No to placing an Accepted Version into a > repository UNLESS they are funded with a funding organisation that has a > specific agreement with Wiley Blackwell > Mooted by ID/OA. **** > > • Taylor & Francis are ‘yellow’ according to Sherpa RoMEO, but > are green after embargo. > Mooted by ID/OA. > **** > > • Springer is a green publisher. > To their credit, Springer have in no way tried to hedge their immediate Green OA policy with the FUD and double-talk of these other publishers. Mandate ID/OA universally and global OA pressure will soon force other publishers<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/889-Elsevier-requires-institutions-to-seek-Elseviers-agreement-to-require-their-authors-to-exercise-their-rights.html>to adopt the same policy as Springer. > **** > > Elsevier has arrangements with 14 funders (each agreement is individually > linked out from > http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements > ):**** > > Arthritis Research Campaign (UK)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/arthritis_research_campaign>, > Austrian Science Fund (FWF)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/austrian_science_fund>, > BBSRC <http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/bbsrc>, British > Heart Foundation (UK)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/british_heart_foundation>, > Cancer Research (UK)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/cancerresearchuk>, > Chief Scientist Office<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/chiefscientistsoffice>, > Department of Health (UK)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/UKdeptofhealth>, > Dunhill Medical Trust<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/dunhillmedicaltrust>, > ESRC <http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/ESRC>, Howard > Hughes Medical Institute (US)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/hhmi>, > Medical Research Council (UK)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/mrcuk>, > National Institutes of Health (US)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/nihauthorrequest>, > Telethon (Italy)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/telethon>, > Wellcome<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/wellcome_trust_authors>Trust (UK)<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/wellcome_trust_authors> > **** > > Wiley has agreements with five ( > http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-406074.html):**** > > Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Telethon, Wellcome Trust, Austrian > Science Fund, NIH > These are mostly Gold OA agreements. I think the funders are making a big mistake by squandering scarce research funds on paying publishers pre-emptively for Gold OA while subscriptions are still paying the full cost of publication. But on no account should funders (or institutions) be negotiating (or even discussing) their Green OA mandates with publishers. It is none of publishers' business -- and ID/OA ensures that publishers have no say whatsoever in it. (It is also a huge strategic mistake for funders to conflate gold OA and Green OA by letting publishers do the deposit instead of authors. Squander research money on Gold OA if you like, but don't let publishers be the ones that comply with Green OA mandates: the depositor should always be the funded/mandatee, not the publisher.) > **** > > The thing that is interesting is that the different agreements range in > what the publisher is prepared to do. They match each other (the > arrangements NIH have with Wiley matches the one it has with Elsevier, for > example). **** > > The agreements range from the ‘opportunity’ to comply by paying for hybrid > open access, where the funder picks up the tab (eg: Wellcome Trust and > Telethon), to the publisher depositing the Final Version into Pub Med > central after 12 months (NIH) or the publisher depositing the Accepted > Version after 6 months (Howard Hughes Medical Institute).**** > > It would be interesting to know how Howard Hughes managed this much more > open access friendly outcome (I will try and find out). > The publishers should be completely out of the loop for ID/OA. That means immediate deposit, by the author, in the author's IR. And if the author wants to observe a publisher embargo on Green OA, fine, but it should be the author (or rather the IR software) that re-sets access to the deposit as OA after the embargo interval has elapsed: *Keep publishers out of it! * > **** > Hybrid**** > > Bear in mind that the cost of paying for the ‘opportunity’ is expensive: > **** > > US$3,000 per article for all Elsevier journals**** > > except Cell Press: US$5,000 per article fee, and**** > > The Lancet, which will have a fee of £400 per page. > It is an immense waste of money to pay for hybrid Gold OA today. But please keep that needless waste of precious research money completely separate from the requirement for the author to comply with ID/OA. > **** > Is open actually open for Elsevier?**** > > I sent an email to Elsevier in March 2012 asking : “The question about the > 12 Open Access journals is also related to the ‘sponsored open access’ > articles where an author pays $3000 to make an article available open > access within an otherwise subscription article … Are the articles only > available via ScienceDirect?**** > > The response avoided the hybrid question by responding about their open > access publications:**** > > “*[[Anne]] *Currently there are 11 of the 13 Journals listed on the > Elsevier website that are available to the public anywhere from any > computer. This is regardless of whether the user has access to > ScienceDirect. To access the journals visit *www.sciencedirect.com *search > for journal. At present articles only go back to December 2011. The 2 > journals that are not on Science Direct 1 - Applied & Translational > Genomics & 8 - Physics of the Dark Universe are new journals and do not > have any articles published yet. Additionally these journals will be made > available via PubMedCentral.”**** > > I have sent an email to follow this up and get clarification. > All this nonsense is beyond belief. But it is sufficient to simply keep it completely separate from ID/OA and its implementation. > **** > What does paying for OA get you?**** > > Elsevier – even after researchers pay for gold OA, “If authors want to > submit a version of the work in an open access repository they must seek > permission from the Global Rights Department before articles are posted > within an open access repository * > http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights”***** > > Wiley Blackwell are slightly better - In addition to publication online > via Wiley Online Library, authors of OnlineOpen articles are permitted to > post the final, published PDF of their article on a website, institutional > repository, or other free public server, immediately on publication > Just as Gold OA fee payment is premature and unnecessary (and greatly overpriced), all the fuss about versions and further re-use rights is premature and unnecessary: The author's peer-reviewed final draft is sufficient for the needs of users who are otherwise denied access to the publisher's version-of-record because their institution lacks a subscription. In fact it is the difference between night and day. The difference between that and the publisher's version of record is minuscule if not trivial. With "Gratis OA" comes every individual user's freedom to access, read, link, download, print-off, store, and data-mine; Gratis OA deposits are also harvested, inverted, indexed and searchable by countless search engines, starting with google and google scholar. The difference between Gratis OA and toll-access is the difference between night and day. In certain fields the further right to create and allow derivative works may be important too, but nowhere near as important as Gratis OA. (And the surest way to hasten Libre OA is to first mandate ID/OA universally.) **** > AUSGOAL**** > > The last meeting of the AUSGOAL practitioners group (which consists of > people from CSIRO, the Dept of Environment, Geoscience Australia and > others) agreed that they should convene a subgroup consisting of government > employees who are scientists who are negotiating agreements with publishers > under Crown Copyright. They will widen the group to include State Govt > scientists too and intend to connect with the research sector.**** > > This subgroup is intended to harmonise their dealing with publishers in > the open agenda. There is concern the publishers will try to ‘divide and > conquer’, making up special deals with different departments that benefit > the publisher, not Crown Copyright. > Copyright reform is the slowest and most arduous way to OA. First clearly and effectively mandate ID/OA, then sit down to try to reform copyright. But not before, or instead. > **** > > NOTE that government scientists are not subject to the same institutional > (reporting and employer) publication requirements for promotion and grants > as academic scientists. So in some ways they are stronger in their > negotiation - they do not ‘have’ to publish in a particular journal for > promotion, so have more leeway to say they will refuse to publish with a > particular publisher on the basis of their copyright rules. > Mandate ID/OA with no restrictions on authors' choice of journals. ID/OA moots journal policy completely. (Then, if you want to get into a conflict with authors, start to talk to them about possible constraints on journal choice, in order to shorten embargoes. But not before, or instead.) **** > > Academic researchers are far more restricted, both by their institutional > promotion systems and by ERA and HERDC reporting.**** > NHMRC mandate**** > > They have reverted to a weak position – the action of > researchers/institutions depends on publishers copyright rules > It is not only weak but absurd to let publisher policy determine funder or institution policy: Mandate ID/OA and then try to re-negotiate copyright. Not before, or instead. > **** > > Note that while the Principal Investigator has the requirement for making > the work OA, it is usually the Corresponding Author who has the final > version of the article (the Accepted Version). If they are at different > institutions this could be a problem. > All institutions and funders should mandate ID/OA, for all their authors and fundees: 1st, 2nd and Nth. > **** > Wellcome Trust **** > > Wellcome Trust only had 50% compliance at the beginning of this year so > they have changed their rules > http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD018855.htm#nine<http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD018855.htm> > The three main reasons Wellcome compliance rates are low have been evident for years: (1) Wellcome emphasizes paid, pricey Gold OA instead of focusing on cost-free Green OA. (2) Wellcome allows publishers to do the depositing (mostly because of Wellcome's preoccupation with pre-emptive Gold OA) instead of making fundees fully responsible for deposit. This creates uncertainty about who is complying, when, and how, and hence makes it needlessly difficult to monitor and verify compliance. (3) Wellcome mandates institution-external deposit instead of institutional deposit, thereby losing the opportunity to recruit fundees' institutions to monitor and verify compliance. > **** > > Wellcome-funded research papers detailed in applications submitted to the > Trust are reviewed to ensure compliance. Where Trust-funded researchers > have not complied with our open access policy, three sanctions will apply: > **** > > • If non-compliant papers are identified in an End of Grant > Report, the Trust will withhold the final 10 per cent of the 'total > transferable funds' budget on the grant until all papers comply. See 10 per > cent retention policy.**** > > • Applicants will be required to ensure that Trust-funded papers > resulting from current or previous grants are compliant before formal > notification of any funding renewals or new grants can be activated.**** > > • Researchers will not be permitted to include any non-compliant > Wellcome-funded publications in any application submitted to the Trust, and > such papers will be discounted from consideration of a researcher's track > record.**** > > • These sanctions apply to all original Trust-funded research > papers published from 1 October 2009 onwards. > Extra measures for monitoring and verifying compliance are always welcome, but Wellcome has failed to adopt the three most important measures: (1) Prioritize Green, (2) Fundees (not publishers) must deposit to comply (immediately: ID/OA); (3) Deposit must be institutional, not institution-external (except when institution has no IR). **** > Observation**** > > Note while the new NHMRC policy and Wellcome Trust clamping down on > compliance is good for open access, it might cause angst and anger rather > than support amongst academia. Some at ANU have expressed concern about > being the ‘meat in the sandwich’ in the argument between funders and > publishers. > Mandate and monitor compliance with ID/OA: No angst, no anger. Stevan Harnad