 |
 |
On 2013-03-14, at 6:00 PM, Arthur Sale <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Unfortunately Stevan, Nick was asking you about the Australian Research Council’s policy. Thanks, Arthur, for pointing out that I had mistaken an ACT policy query for a HEFCE/REF policy query (since it was on the HEFCE/REF thread). Some queries below: > The metadata must always be deposited in the IR, but the AM or VoR (either is ok) need > only be deposited if one of them is not otherwise OA. If they are, then a link to the OA > version suffices (URL, DOI, etc). In all relevant cases an immediate deposit, OA when > possible but max 12 months applies, so that’ll make you a bit happier. > > Of course this does not compel people to do that, but that is what the policy allows, > and what most Australian researchers will follow. Note that ‘otherwise OA’ covers a > broader field than Gold journals, for example a subject repository, a personal website, > the cloud, etc. The intention is clear: the ARC wants open access, and it is happy to > prescribe that. It is not concerned with how compliance might be monitored. > > Compliance with the ARC policy is however not difficult to determine for the institution. How so? If authors might be depositing anywhere? > The issue that now concerns Australian open access advocates is ‘What approach do > we take to get our institutions to adopt institutional mandates?’ There are very few > of these in Australia, though now both our research councils have similar funder > mandates. Left to themselves, universities are likely to just implement those policies, > which affect only a fraction of the academics (albeit an active group). I believe the > only strategy for us that makes sense is to try to get universities to adopt a union of > the two funder mandate policies, to apply to all academics in the institution. That > might work. Trying for a much more expansive institutional mandate (like your > deposit even if already in a Gold journal) seems likely to fail, as an absurd requirement. Why is it an absurd requirement to deposit immediately in the author's IR, regardless of whether the journal is subscription or OA and of whether the deposit is embargoed or immediate OA? That simple, natural, uniform local deposit procedure is precisely what makes it easy for an institution to monitor compliance. And that's part of the reason why HEFCE/REF proposed it. Maybe if it is actually adopted by HEFCE/REF, ARC will eventually see fit to follow suit? > BTW, the ARC mandate appears to apply to monographs (books) arising > from research grants as well as journal articles, but that is another thread… Lot's of luck. But my hands are full trying to first get what is already fully doable, and long overdue, done, at long last… Stevan > > Arthur Sale > Tasmania, Australia > > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013 8:01 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > > On 2013-03-14, at 1:13 AM, Nick Thieberger <[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]> wrote: > Full Text: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/994-.html > > Executive Summary: The proposed HEFCE/REF Open Access [OA] mandate -- 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 >