default option should be for authors to  

deposit full-text (author final draft)
immediately on acceptance, with
ACCEPTANCE-DATE tagged
JOURNAL-NAME tagged
FUNDER-NAME tagged

1. in personal bibliography and on own web site, publication list should ALWAYS include repository URL. Makes access for other workers easier & is likely to increase citation. I routinely put doi URL [not publishers’ URL] and repositoryy URL in URL field of my reference software]
2. where one does NOT have acccess, include aythor requesy of form “ Please can you send me an electronic copy of Ms, doi: xxxxx and/or give me the URL of copy in your institution open access repository [see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_mandate]. This encourages use of repositories.
   

On 2012-11-05, at 3:42 AM, "Kornbrot, Diana" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Re: JISC-REPOSITORIES Digest - 2 Nov 2012 to 4 Nov 2012 (#2012-207)
It would be a good idea if publishers were REQUIRED to download
this meta data web download citation is requested
Similarly they should be REQUIRED to download the repository URL

Diana, I am afraid this is putting the shoe on the wrong foot!

Funder mandates don't bind publishers, they bind fundees.

And in general it is a mistake to rely on what publishers (even Gold OA publishers) do:

For all articles -- subscription, hybrid-gold, full-gold, embargoed, un-embargoed) -- the
default option should be for authors to  

deposit full-text (author final draft)
immediately on acceptance, with

ACCEPTANCE-DATE tagged
JOURNAL-NAME tagged
FUNDER-NAME tagged
grant-number/name field filled

On no account offload or divide any of this responsibility with publishers, otherwise
compliance will become and unmanageable, unmeasurable and confused failure.

(The Wellcome Trust's emphasis and reliance on Gold publishers for compliance
has been responsible for years of OA shortfall for over 50% of annual Wellcome-funded research.
The Trust is only beginning to remedy this chronic non-compliance. It's better for other
funders and institutions to learn from the Trust's mistakes rather than to repeat them at
the cost of still more years of lost OA: OA mandates and OA-provision are a matter between
the research community and itself. Apart from whatever OA embargoes the funder of institution
allows, publishers have absolutely nothing to do with it.)

Stevan Harnad

Best
Diana


On 05/11/2012 02:26, "Pablo de Castro" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask] <x-msg:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> > wrote:

Dear Stevan,

Thanks for this.

In fact, stressing the need for the IR network to enhance and harmonise their metadata in order to be able to provide information for consistently tracking Open Access outputs may be as important for getting IRs into the main Research Information Mgt picture as advocating for specifically-formulated Open Access policies, since their reliability as institutional reporting tools will thus get significantly strenghtened.

Besides EU FP7 OpenAIRE Project, the JISC-funded UK RepositoryNet+ (aka the RepNet) Project http://www.repositorynet.ac.uk/ is also working for providing new services and tools to the UK repository network. Although currently very much focused on the so-called RepNet Wave 1 components (ie the R-J Broker service for automating content deposit into IRs and IRUS-UK project for delivering COUNTER-compliant cross-repository usage stats), the RepNet is also aiming to eventually provide a whole set of new repository services, including DOI-, funder- and grant-related metadata enhancement services, tools for monitoring funder mandate compliance rates and emphasis on promoting OpenAIRE-compatibility for UK IRs. See in this regard the "UK RepositoryNet+: Developing New Services over the UK Repository Network" poster at http://bit.ly/SQAXbC, to be displayed at the forthcoming Berlin10 Open Access Conference in Stellenbosch, South Africa.

The RepNet will also be delivering a comprehensive presentation next Fri at the UKCoRR annual meeting at Teesside University where the feedback of the IR manager community on the planned new repository services will be gathered and discussed.


Kind regards,


Pablo

-----
Pablo de Castro
[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask] <x-msg:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
UK RepositoryNet+ Consultant
EDINA
The University of Edinburgh
Causewayside House
160 Causewayside
Edinburgh  EH9 1PR
http://www.repositorynet.ac.uk/




On 5 November 2012 01:00, JISC-REPOSITORIES automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask] <x-msg:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> > wrote:

There is 1 message totaling 379 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. The Importance of Repository EC- (OpenAire) and RCUK-Compliance Tags for
     Mandate Compliance Verification

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:32:19 -0500
From:    Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask] <x-msg:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> >
Subject: The Importance of Repository EC- (OpenAire) and RCUK-Compliance Tags for Mandate Compliance Verification

>
> ***Cross-Posted ***


It is extremely important for the success of both funder and institutional
OA mandates worldwide that eprints, dspace and all other repositories be
made compliant with funder harvesting requirements such as those of
OpenAIRE<http://www.openaire.eu <http://www.openaire.eu/> > (as
Eloy Rodrigues indicates in the passage appended after this message).

For deposit mandates to work, they need to have *a reliable and
date-stamped compliance verification mechanism*.

*Plea to repository managers and software developers world-wide: *

This is the time to make sure that your repositories implement the
requisite metadata tags for specifying the funding agency (US, EU or RCUK)
as well as the article's journal acceptance date).

A system must be designed for ensuring that the mandate will actually be
complied with, which means that there has to be an effective, timely
monitoring mechanism, with swift feedback and consequences in case of
non-compliance.

That means that immediate-deposit of full-text upon acceptance for
publication has to be monitored continuously, based on authors' ongoing
publication calendar dates not just retrospectively in 4-6-year batches.

If compliance is instead left to the the latter -- long-delayed
retrospective batches -- then even the talk about a "6-12-month embargo"
becomes meaningless! Embargos can only be observed if publication dates are
observed, and hence if deposits, whether embargoed or unembargoed, are
immediate. That's how deposit-date needs to be integrated into RCUK
authors' annual work-flow, including the all-important date-stamping by the
official date of the journal's letter of acceptance -- not the wildly
varying and incalculable date on which the journal issue actually appears
-- which is in turn often far from the calendar date of publication: as
much as a year or more at times.)

The EC's and RCUK's  mandates have to be integrated with institutional
mandates so as to implement the following 8 shared conditions:


(1)  *immediate-deposit* (even if access to the deposit is allowed to be
embargoed):

(2) of the *final peer-reviewed draft*

(3) on the *date of acceptance* by the journal (which is marked by a
verifiable calendar date-stamp)

(4) and the immediate-deposit must be directly in the *author's own
institutional repository* (not institution-externally -- central
repositories can harvest from IRs)

(5) so that immediate-deposit can be *monitored and verified by the
author's institution* (regardless of whether the mandate is from a funder
or the institution)

(6) as a *funding compliance condition* and/or an *institutional employment
condition*

(7) and institutional repository must be designated as the *sole locus of
deposit * for submitting publications for institutional performance
evaluation, funder conditions and national research assessment.

(8) Repository deposits must be monitored so as to generate *rich and
visible metrics of usage and citation* so as to verify and reward authors'
deposits as well as to showcase and archive the institution's and funder's
research output and impact.


An instance of mututally reinforcing funder and institutional policies is
the FRS-FNRS <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html>policy <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html%3Epolicy>
in Belgium.

Best wishes,
Stevan Harnad

*On 2012-11-04, at 12:39 PM, "Eloy Rodrigues"  [OpenAire] wrote:*

Hi Stevan,

I agree with the recommendations for compliance-verification for RCUK
that I've seen in another message.

Regarding OpenAIRE we tried that our infrastructure helps/cooperate (and not
compete) with the network of institutional repositories. We tried to have
very "low barrier" guidelines for compliance (we are now calling
compatibility), basically just requiring identification of the EC project
and access status (Open Access, embargoed, closed) in a "standard" way.
EC funded publications will be regularly harvested from compliant/compatible
repositories. So, authors from institutions with compliant repositories,
just need to deposit on their repository to comply to the EC policy. And
even if an author goes to the OpenAIRE portal to deposit a publication, he
will be re-directed to the repository of it's own institution.

But unfortunately the number of compliant repositories is still not high
enough (except on some southern countries like Portugal and Spain), and is
particularly low in the UK...

Best,
Serviços de Documentação
Eloy Rodrigues
Direcção
Campus de Gualtar, 4710 - 057 Braga -  Portugal
Telefone +351 253 604 156/7/8; Fax +351 253 604 159
Campus de Azurém, 4800 058 Guimarães
Telefone +351 253 510 168; Fax +351 253 510 117
http://www.sdum.uminho.pt <http://www.sdum.uminho.pt/>   | Siga-nos

------------------------------

End of JISC-REPOSITORIES Digest - 2 Nov 2012 to 4 Nov 2012 (#2012-207)
**********************************************************************

---

Emeritus Professor Diana Kornbrot
email:  [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask] <x-msg:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>    
web:    http://dianakornbrot.wordpress.com/
Work
Department of Psychology
School of Life and Medical Sciences
 University of Hertfordshire
 College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK
   voice:   +44 (0) 170 728 4626
   fax:     +44 (0) 170 728 5073
Home
 19 Elmhurst Avenue
 London N2 0LT, UK
    voice:   +44 (0) 208  444 2081
    mobile: +44 (0) 740 318 1612
    fax:      +44 (0) 870 706 1445

---