Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Open Access Feedback
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On 2012-03-14, at 8:50 AM, Peter Suber wrote: > The Research Councils UK are seeking public comments on their draft new OA ↵ policy. > ↵ http://www.openscholarship.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/rcuk_proposed_policy_on_access_to_research_outputs.pdf > > Please send any comments to <communications AT rcuk.ac.uk> and use ↵ "Open Access Feedback" in the subject line. 1. It is excellent that RCUK is reducing the allowable embargo period (to 6 months for most research councils). 2. A license that formally allows more re-use rights (e.g., "libre ↵ OA", CC-BY) is desirable, but it asks for more than just free online access ("gratis ↵ OA") at a time when we are stiill far from having free online access. It thereby puts more constraints on authors, demands more of publishers, and makes it harder for that vast majority of institutions and funders who have not yet managed to reach consensus on adopting a Green OA self-archiving mandate to reach consensus, because of the added constraints. I accordingly recommend to RCUK that "libre OA" be strongly ↵ encouraged, but that only "Gratis OA" (which automatically includes linking, downloading, local print-off, local storage, local data-mining, search-engine harvesting and search) be required. This makes it easier and more probable that universities and research institutions will be able to follow suit, adopting complementary Green OA mandates of their own, for all of their research output, whether or not RCUK-funded. It will also make it easier and more probable that other research funders will adopt similar institution-friendly mandates. Once mandatory Gratis OA prevails, it will not be long before it is upgraded to Libre OA. But first things first. Do not let the best get in the way of the good, of which there is still so very little. http://bit.ly/DepLoc 3. The locus of deposit should be the fundee's own institutional repository, not an institution-external central repository. Central repositories and search engines can then harvest the metadata from the institutional repository for search for re-display. The reason for this is again that there are more publisher restrictions on institution-external deposit than on institutional deposit, and at this time when there is still so little OA and so few OA mandates, it will make it easier and more probable that universities and research institutions will be able to follow suit, adopting complementary Green OA mandates of their own, for all of their research output, whether or not RCUK-funded, if their researchers do not need to do multiple institution-external deposits or to face needless extra publisher restrictions. http://bit.ly/DepLoc 4. The optimal Green OA Mandate is ID/OA -- Immediate Deposit, Optional Access -- is identical to the RCUK Mandate in every respect except that it stipulates that the deposit itself must be done immediately upon acceptance for publication, rather than only after the allowable embargo period has expired. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html This means that users will see the metadata immediately, and can already make automated eprint requests to the author for single copies for research purposes during the embargo. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ 5. Repository deposit should be officially stipulated as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for research assessment as well as for submitting publication lists for RCUK research proposals. -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .