I endorse Pat’s comments, and like her I point to the Australian Research Council, and the National Health & Medical Research Council (our two Australian public funders). Both have OA mandates. I can supply links to the policies if SHERPA/FACT does not have them.
One could also invite Stevan Harnad to provide a model institutional OA policy, and SHERPA/FACT could test compliance against Stevan’s policy.
Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania, Australia
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pat Loria
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 10:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SHERPA/FACT - BETA Release Now Available
I see it more as informing, rather than canonizing. SHERPA/FACT seems to do a good job in reporting where various funding agencies are at now. I believe in the open access movement as much as anyone, but it is good to have a tool that makes it easy for me as a librarian to look up the various OA and self-archiving protocols. That is SHERPA’s strength and their purpose. If anything, SHERPA/FACT can assist the OA movement by providing an API to this new data so that OA self-archiving policies can be used to flag administrators that a paper is due to be made OA.
I only hope that SHERPA will consider adding funding agencies from other countries to such a great web application.
Regards,
Pat Loria
Pasquale (Pat) Loria
Research Librarian, Library Services
Academic Services Division
University of Southern Queensland | Toowoomba 4350 QLD Australia
T: +61 7 4631 1778 | Fax: +61 7 4631 1493 | Email: [log in to unmask]
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013 10:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SHERPA/FACT – BETA Release Now Available
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.
This email (including any attached files) is confidential and is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you received this email by mistake, please, as a courtesy, tell the sender, then delete this email.
The views and opinions are the originator's and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Southern Queensland. Although all reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that this email contained no viruses at the time it was sent we accept no liability for any losses arising from its receipt.
The University of Southern Queensland is a registered provider of education with the Australian Government.
(CRICOS Institution Code QLD 00244B / NSW 02225M, TEQSA PRV12081 )