 |
 |
I just want to register my regret and dismay that SHERPA is yet again slavishly following and echoing all noise in the air, instead of reflecting, and doing something to lead the way to OA rather than just cranking up the volume of the ambient buzz. For years SHERPA/ROMEO has been slavishly amplifying publishers' every whim instead of just cataloguing the essential points of publisher policy: *Do they endorse immediate Green OA to the peer-reviewed version? and if not, how long do they propose to embargo it?* Instead, SHERPA faithfully parrots every nuance of FUD and double-talk that publishers dream up -- I await a solemn stipulation that the author may only provide OA on Tuesdays, and only if they have a blue-eyed maternal uncle -- leaving users in a wash of useless detail and confusion. Now this same indiscriminate parroting of arbitrariness and nonsense on the part of the RCUK OA policy has been given a megaphone in SHERPA/FACT. Instead of leaving RCUK to work out a coherent policy, SHERPA/FACT takes the tentative vagaries of the RCUK policy-makers and canonizes them as if they made sense and were ready to be etched in Mosaic tablets of stone for UK (and worldwide!) researchers to revere and obey. Instead of agonizing over what journal they may or may not publish in, in order to comply with RCUK requirements, by working their way through the maze of SHERPA/FACT contingencies, RCUK authors would be best to *publish in whatever journal they wish and deposit their refereed final drafts in their institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication * (as HEFCE/REF requires). Sensible authors should make their deposits OA immediately. Cautious or timid authors can look up the length of their publisher's embargo on OA (if any) and set access to the deposit to be made OA when the embargo has elapsed. All authors can be confident that RCUK will not be monitoring or "enforcing" embargo lengths for years to come, whilst the RCUK policy is being "re-evaluated." And that's the only information SHERPA/FACT ought to be providing, apart from links to either the publisher's website or RCUK's website, so curious authors can see their respective caprices at first hand. As to the rest of the new RCUK policy -- the part that both publishers and RCUK/Wellcome are really interested in namely, *how the Gold subsidy is to be administered and disbursed* -- nolo contendere, but the less said, the better: Once you've deposited your final draft in your institutional repository, forget about the Gold subsidy unless your chosen journal happens to be Gold. Stevan Harnad On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Azhar Hussain < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > **Apologies for cross-posting** > > Joint Press Release: Centre for Research Communications, Wellcome Trust, > and RCUK > > SHERPA/FACT – BETA Release Now Available > > To coincide with the RCUK’s new OA policy and Wellcome Trust policy > changes, the Centre for Research Communications (CRC) is pleased to > announce the availability of SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool > (SHERPA/FACT) Beta. The beta release of SHERPA/FACT interprets data from > SHERPA/RoMEO, JULIET and other sources to provide clear guidance to RCUK > and Wellcome Trust funded authors on compliance with their Open Access (OA) > policies and advises on the options available. > > SHERPA/FACT Beta: > • Asks authors to select which of the RCUK Councils or Wellcome > Trust has funded their work. > • Asks authors to enter the journal name or ISSN of the journal they > wish to use. > • Cross-references the information held in RoMEO and in JULIET on > both Funders' and Publishers' policies. > • Gives the author clear information as to whether that journal > offers publication or archiving rights compliant with their funders' policy. > • Notes the level of OA fee payable, if any, and if available from > the publisher site. > • Gives guidance to the author as to what action to take next to > comply with their funders' policy, customising guidance according to the > stage of the author's publication - accepted, published, etc. > > For more information and to use SHERPA/FACT beta, please visit > www.sherpa.ac.uk/fact > > IMPORTANT NOTE: This is a beta version and has been tested for accuracy > against existing data held by SHERPA/RoMEO, JULIET and other third party > sources. However, information in this area is dynamic and many publishers > are currently updating, changing and clarifying their policies in response > to the launch of the RCUK and Wellcome Trust policies. > > As updated policy information becomes available from publishers, > SHERPA/FACT will be updated accordingly. We are aware of a number of > changes due to be released soon – indeed, FACT may even prompt further > clarifications to be made. FACT beta will, over the coming weeks, undergo > continuous improvements to the information it holds. > > Please use SHERPA/FACT beta for evaluation purposes and report any > information that needs updating and any other comments to > [log in to unmask] > > Bill Hubbard, Director of the CRC, said: "For more Open Access research > from the RCUK and Wellcome Trust to be made available to everyone, > researchers need clear guidance about whether their chosen journal complies > with their funder's policy. SHERPA/FACT will give them a clear answer, help > raise an institution's rate of compliance and ultimately help more research > to be made available to us all." > > Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services at the Wellcome Trust, said: > ”Providing clear guidance to our researchers will help to ensure they can > comply with the Trust’s Open Access mandate.” > > Mark Thorley, chair of Research Councils UK Research Outputs Network, > said: “The launch of this beta version of SHERPA FACT is part of our > strategy of providing a range of resources to support implementation of the > new RCUK Policy on Open Access”. > > Further information > > Contact > Azhar Hussain > Tel: 0115 8467235 or email: [log in to unmask] > > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and > may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in > error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do > not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in > any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this > email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. > > > > This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment > > may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: > > you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the > > University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. > >