Bill
I suspect that Steven's suggestion of an extra, more simplistic RoMEO - far from being patronising to researchers - comes out of of the reality of researchers' attitude to repository copyright.
Over the past few years I have witnessed a growing and continual improvement regarding researchers' knowledge of repository copyright. That said, I have delivered dozens of sessions to academics over the last couple of years or more and I would say that most of them *are* really only interested in a straight yes or no. Not because they are necessarily flippant or incapable of understanding publishers' conditions, but because having to understand varying policies is seen as just another administrative burden. Despite us producing concise online publisher policy guides for each school and me flogging them to groups of attendees at sessions who noddingly agree with their usefulness, I suspect they are subsequently rarely consulted - it's far easier to deposit a full text and let the repository editors decide.
Just for the record I don't see the need for two RoMEOs, but I do see the need for increasing clarity and concise lingo regarding copyright that can be readily interpreted by those who, unlike us, are not dealing with this kind of thing on a daily basis.
Best wishes
Simon de Montfalcon
e-Prints Soton
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Hubbard
Sent: 06 January 2011 16:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rights Reductio Ad Absurdum
Dear Colleagues,
I am sorry that Stevan Harnad has, once more, found it necessary to criticise RoMEO on the grounds that we report what publishers have in their contracts, rather than simply covering up inconvenient conditions.
We do not think that it would be acceptable for us to decide what conditions people should know and what conditions can be tidied away out of sight: censorship or bowdlerism, even for the best of reasons, still obscures the truth and does not seem to us to be an acceptable way of working. We think there has to be an ethical dimension to reporting legal contracts, no matter Stevan Harnad's dismissal of this idea.
As David Prosser has pointed out, in a litigious age, what institution will trust a service which obscures some conditions the service has unilaterally decided are irrelevant? Conversely, what publisher would trust or work with a service if it does not report what their contract states? What author should trust any service if it has decided to hide conditions which might make the author personally liable?
Stevan Harnad is not the only person to think that some publisher contracts have complex conditions which might be questionable: I am sure we all do. RoMEO staff certainly think so - we have to deal with them everyday. However, it is the responsibility of the individual or individual institution to decide what can be ignored or risked in the contracts they have signed.
Therefore, RoMEO reports on what publishers write into the contracts that authors sign. If anyone finds some of the conditions ambiguous or restrictive, then do please write to the publishers and tell them this. We certainly do this and have an active strand of work with publishers to question ambiguity and encourage clarity. We currently have over 1,000 active queries and clarifications waiting with publishers and journals.
If publishers change to a clearly worded permissive contract we will be delighted to report this on RoMEO: but we are not going to make it up.
**
As a second strand, Stevan Harnad suggests that what is needed is two RoMEOs - one of which, to paraphrase, gives a summary of publishers' conditions and one of which gives a simplistic yes/no for archiving, saving authors from having to consider anything more complex than yes or no. Apart from being potentially misleading, this seems more than a little patronising to researchers who are used to dealing with complexity.
In fact, we had thought that this is what Stevan Harnad's own Southampton website already does. For many years this has been taking a regular partial data feed from RoMEO and then re-interpreting our information, introducing the pale-green, green and grey colour distinctions and giving a pre-digested yes/no opinion on archiving rights. It has even borrowed the RoMEO name in its url, which has, unsurprisingly, caused a little confusion. Since this service exists and has such a vocal advocate and promoter as Stevan Harnad, I think that this particular niche has already been satisfactorily addressed.
Do please note that although this takes a data feed from RoMEO, the changes that are made mean that RoMEO cannot take responsibility for the content. This service is not part of the world-wide network of RoMEO partners and contributors.
**
Where we can agree with Stevan Harnad is around his closing remarks: "Without a mandate, librarian intervention and mediation seems to be the only way to eke out more OA content."
As far as we know through work with RoMEO, RSP, OpenAIRE and NECOBELAC, worldwide deposit of eprints is mainly from repository managers/staff/library staff, rather than academics. We know this user-group of RoMEO prefers to know detail: in which case, we are pleased that RoMEO is serving its users well and helping those people that are actually depositing material.
We also agree that the (seemingly) simplest and (certainly) most scalable solution is for authors to self-archive as a matter of course. What remains, as it has for many years, is continuing and continual advocacy and promotion of OA to academic authors and researchers. If further change is going to happen, this will depend, in part, on authors working effectively within a changing and complex communication landscape. This will require them to be informed of their choices, responsibilities, the possibilities, freedoms and restrictions. We feel that RoMEO best serves this effort by providing accurate and complete information.
**
We also agree with Stevan Harnad about the unfortunate change to Elsevier's contract conditions. Behind the imprecise terminology, it does seem to be addressed at the adoption of institutional mandates (and, by extension, at the wider spread of author self-archiving).
Elsevier is thereby putting themselves squarely between an institution and its staff, in seeking to limit what an institution can tell staff to do with their own research on institutional systems. This is extraordinary. The condition even seems to suggest, by association with funder's repositories, that institutions could come to a separate agreement with Elsevier if they have a mandate. Triple-dipping anyone?
It seems a pity that discussion of this change of Elsevier's has been side-tracked by Stevan Harnad's personal opinions of RoMEO. Once we can stop "shooting the messenger", maybe we could address why Elsevier is doing this, whether it is acceptable and whether it can be amended.
Regards,
Bill
--
Bill Hubbard
JISC Research Communications Strategist
Head of Centre for Research Communications
CRC - http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk
RoMEO - JULIET - OpenDOAR
SHERPA - RSP - RCS
NECOBELAC - OpenAIRE
Centre for Research Communications
Greenfield Medical Library
University of Nottingham
Queens Medical Centre
Nottingham
NG7 2UH
UK
Email [log in to unmask]
Web http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk
Tel +44(0) 115 846 7657
Fax +44(0) 115 846 8244
* * * * * * * *
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.
|
