** Apologies for Cross-Posting **

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:23:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad --- ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
    <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: The EU has already mandated Green OA!

Below is another brilliant suggestion from the remarkable N. Miradon
(who may be retired but hardly retiring -- and tireless!)

If I have not misunderstand, N. Miradon has drawn to our attention
here to an existing EU/EC policy under which it would be possible to
implement an ID/OA mandate for EU with no further legislative or
consultative changes retired at all!

    ****(See comments further below: It looks to me as if pointing
    this out to the EC would be the shortest and easiest route to the
    implementation of the EC A1 recommendation to implement Green OA
    self-archiving, for, in effect, it is already mandated! The only thing
    that still needs to be specified is trivial and noncontroversial:
    the locus and mode of submission and storage of the already mandated
    publication. Currently it needs to be sent in by email; the only
    change needed is to require it to be deposited in a Closed Access
    URL in an Institutional Repository! More about this below.) ****

A few suggestions are added below concerning the all-important locus of
deposit of the published research documents.

It is very important (in order to generate a coherent, systematic,
universally scaleable solution) that the default locus of deposit should
be specified as the researcher's own (OAI-compliant) Institutional
Repository (IR). Other loci are possible if the researcher's institution
does not yet have an IR (there are numerous possible Central Repositories
(CRs), national and international, and the EU could perhaps also provide
one of its own, but the preferred locus should be the researcher's own
IR. The EU policy will also help encourage research institutions to
create their own IRs if they have not done so already, and to fill them
also with their non-EU-funded research output as well:

    Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)
    http://roar.eprints.org/

    "Central vs. Distributed Archives" (began Jun 1999)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0294.html

    "Central versus institutional self-archiving" (began Nov 2003)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3207.html
            
    "France's HAL, OAI interoperability, and 
     Central vs Institutional Repositories" (started Oct 2006)
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5678.html

    Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
    http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html

Comments on suggested changes in the text:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, N. Miradon wrote:

> This is about the forthcoming parliamentary discussions of
> "Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and
> Preservation".
> 
> I have drafted a letter to my MP and to my MEP.
> Copy of my draft letter below the fold.
> 
> I would be v grateful if you could read my letter for errors and
> omissions, and send corrections to me off list (or post them here).
> 
> And if you have 2 minutes to spare, perhaps you could send something
> like this to your own deputé/ member of parliament.
> 
> N. Miradon
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> + + +
> 
> Dear Member of Parliament/Member of the European Parliament
> 
> I understand that Parliament has received a Communication from the
> European Commission "On Scientific Information in the Digital Age:
> Access, Dissemination and Preservation". There is an accompanying
> "Staff Working Paper" - details in footnotes [1] and [2] below.
> 
> The reason for this letter is to ask you to pursue some questions
> which are relevant to "Access, Dissemination and Preservation" of
> scientific information; but which the Commission papers do not seem
> to mention.
> 
> I am a retired research scientist.  I have always found that the
> European Research programmes are well structured at the start, but
> that it is difficult to find the results at the end. The problem
> is that the scientific information that is produced by each EU
> research project is dispersed through publications in a multitude of
> books, journals, pamphlets and Commission and other web pages.

I would add here that depositing them in an interoperable OAI-compliant
repository would be optimal, preferably the researcher's own institutional
repository.

    http://roar.eprints.org/

> So I would like to ask why all published results from EU-supported
> research projects cannot be grouped together and made available via
> one well-organised EU web page or 'portal'.

The web page or portal can be harvested from the IRs of the EU
researchers' IRs, or it can consist of a list of the projects, or the
papers resulting from the projects, together with the URL of the IR in
which they are deposited.

> I think that it is reasonable to ask the Commission to do this. The
> three necessary constituents of a 'portal' are -
>     (i) the published research documents,
>     (ii) a web site,

(e.g., the EU researcher's IR)

>     (iii) a data standard for classifying and linking the documents.

The OAI protocol is the standard for making the IRs interoperable. There
may need to be some further tag for specifically selecting EU funded
publications.

> The European Commission already possesses (i) and (ii) and (iii);
> 
> (i) The Commission's "Seventh Framework Programme Grant Agreement"
>     already requires that every research contract funded under the
>     Seventh Framework Programme should send to the Commission an
>     electronic copy of every publication produced, and that the
>     Commission shall, with appropriate safeguards, be authorised to
>     publish every document sent to it - see footnote [3].

****This existing EU/EC policy is already a godsend,
as it already provides the basis for the EU to adopt the
Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access Mandate without any further need of
legislation or consultation:

As the EU already requires (mandates) both the electronic copy of the
publication, and the right to make it OA (if and when the copyright
agreement with the publisher allows it), then the only thing left
to stipulate is how "send[ing] to the commission an electronic copy"
should be done, immediately upon acceptance for publication, in the
form of depositing it in the researcher's own IR (preferably, or in
a OAI-compliant CR otherwise), in immediate Open Access if possible,
otherwise in Closed Access -- and merely sending the commission the URL
for the (Closed Access) deposit!

The EU can harvest the document if it wishes, or link it in a portal. The
only change involved here is a specification of the mode of submission
of what has already been mandated by the EC. (The NIH had a similar
opportunity to do this in 2004, but failed to take notice.)

   "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" (Oct 2004)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4091.html

    Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
    http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html

    Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Self-Archiving
    Mandate: Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA)
    http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html

    A National Open Access Policy
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/weaker-OApolicy.htm

> (ii) The Commission already has numerous web pages from earlier
>     Framework Programmes, each showing the reports of its particular
>     research projects - some examples are listed in [4].
> 
> (iii) The Commission has already developed a "Common European Research
>     Information Format". The Commission has also sent it to the
>     member states as a formal recommendation - see [5].
> 
> However the Commission has not yet managed to join up (i) + (ii) + (iii)
> So, for the results of EU research projects, "Access, Dissemination
> and Preservation" are substandard. I have sketched some of the
> current rather untidy situation in footnote [4].
> 
> It is of course understandable that a large bureaucracy should
> sometimes fail to join up the various elements under its control.
> 
> It is also understandable that bureaucracies should not draw
> attention to internal problems in their published Papers.
> 
> However I trust that you and your colleagues will investigate the
> matter when you discuss "On Scientific Information in the Digital
> Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation".
> 
> It should not be too difficult or expensive for the Commission to
> ensure that the publications that are sent to the Commission, are made
> available on the websites that the Commission runs, using the
> information format which the Commission itself recommends.

And through links to the researcher's own IR.

> If this is done, then all published documents from the research that
> is funded in the Seventh Framework Programme will become available
> over the web. Industry, research workers and citizens will all
> benefit - and they should be grateful to the Commission and to you.
> 
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> N. Miradon
> 
> + + +
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> 1. "Communication from the Commission to the European
>     Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
>     Committee on scientific information in the digital age:
>     access, dissemination and preservation {SEC(2007)181}" /*
>     COM/2007/0056 final */
>     in English, French and German at
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0056:FIN:EN:PDF
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0056:FIN:FR:PDF
> 
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0056:FIN:DE:PDF
> 
> 2. "Commission staff working document - Document accompanying
>     the Communication from the Commission to the European
>     Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
>     Committee on scientific information in the digital age:
>     access, dissemination and preservation {COM(2007) 56 final}"
>     /* SEC/2007/0181 final */
> 
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/scientific_information/swp_en.pdf"
> 
> 3. "FP7 Grant Agreement - Annex II General Conditions
>     Version 20.12.06 ISC clean 3."
>     ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/fp7/docs/annex2_general_conditions_20061222_en.pdf
> 
>     Article II.30 (Dissemination) says -
>     "... Furthermore, an electronic copy of the published version or
>     the final manuscript accepted for publication shall also be
>     provided to the Commission at the same time for the purpose set
>     out in Article II.12(2) if this does not infringe any rights of
>     third parties."
> 
>     And Article II.12. (Information and communication) says -
>     "... 2. The Commission shall be authorised to publish, in
>     whatever form and on or by whatever medium, the following
>     information: ... – the details/references and the abstracts of
>     scientific publications relating to foreground and, where
>     provided pursuant to Article II.30, the published version or the
>     final manuscript accepted for publication; ..."
> 
> 
> 4. The "Fifth framework programme of the European Community
>    for research, technological development and demonstration
>    activities (1998 - 2002)" was divided into thematic programmes and
>    horizontal programmes (TP and HP).
> 
>     Programmes TP and HP were  divided into sub programmes, and each
>     sub programme was further divided into key actions (KA).
> 
>     Here are the starter web pages of TP1
>      TP 1 Quality of life and management of living resources
>        TP 1, KA 1: http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/TP 1, KA
> .1/index_number_en.htm
>        TP 1, KA 2: ?
>        TP 1, KA 3:
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/cell-factory/volume1/area_en.html
>        TP 1, KA 4: http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/TP 1, KA
> .4/TP 1, KA .4_reports_en.html
>        TP 1, KA 5: http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/TP 1, KA
> .5/en/toc-area.html
>        TP 1, KA 6: http://ec.europa.eu//research/quality-of-life/TP 1, KA
> .6/TP 1, KA .6.html
>        TP 1, KA 7:
> http://ec.europa.eu//research/quality-of-life/pdf/generic-rtd.pdf
> 
>     Note that each of these pages has a different design, and that none of
>     them has a search engine.
> 
>     If you are looking for particular information, you may also need to
>     look through the rest of the structure (web pages not listed here)
>     1 Thematic programmes
>      TP 2 User friendly information society
>      TP 3 Competitive and sustainable growth
>      TP 4 Energy, environment and sustainable development
>     2 Horizontal programmes
>      HP 1 Confirming the international role of community research
>      HP 2 Promotion of innovation and encouragement of participation of SMEs
>      HP 3 Improving human research potential and the socio-economic
> knowledge base
> 
> 
> 5. CERIF (Common European Research Information Format) was
>     developed with the support of the EC (European Commission) in
>     two major phases: 1987-1990 and 1997-1999. It is an European
>     Union Recommendation to member states.
>     http://www.eurocris.org:8080/lenya/euroCRIS/live/index.html


AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
        To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
        Post discussion to:
        [log in to unmask]

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
        http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
    BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
            http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when 
            a suitable one exists.
            http://www.doaj.org/
AND  
    in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
            in your institutional repository.
            http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
            http://archives.eprints.org/
            http://openaccess.eprints.org/