Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
From: "Andras Holl" <holl AT konkoly.hu>
Nick, Small, independent, innovative OA journals do not get the credit they would ↵ deserve - I am partial, because I have my "own" journal - and often left out of ↵ considerations. They are not green, but not "professional" gold either. They might ↵ not get IFs, in spite of their (measurable) quality, success and impact. They are not ↵ represented properly (that's what I feel) by OASPA either. Andras Holl On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:47:27 +1100, Nick Thieberger wrote > Steven, > > Our example is of a small OA journal, now in its seventh year. We have ↵ pioneered publishing primary language material to accompany linguistic articles ↵ and locate all our collection in a DSpace repository with handles. Our funding ↵ is scraped together and covers student GAships for copy-editing and page layout ↵ of articles. Our reach is excellent and can always be improved, but we use ↵ download statistics to emulate an impact factor. In your model, author download ↵ statistics will be split between the OA journal's site and the home ↵ institution's repository. My University repository allows us to have a full ↵ citation that points to the OA article in the originating journal's repository ↵ and that would seem to be a good outcome for both your mandating institution ↵ and the struggling OA journal that needs to justify itself to its funders. I'm ↵ sorry that you think that an OA journal that is doing its best to keep ↵ producing free OA output is acting as a publisher with a 'publishers' imp ortunate nonsense'. > > > Nick Thieberger > > On 15 March 2013 08:00, Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> ↵ wrote: > > > On 2013-03-14, at 1:13 AM, Nick Thieberger <thien AT unimelb.edu.au> ↵ wrote: > > But what if the article is in an OA journal that would like to have the ↵ hit count for > downloads from its site? Is there scope for the mandate to cover only ↵ non-OA > journal articles perhaps? > > That would be an exceedingly bad solution, for authors, for their ↵ institutions > for their research and for OA. > > And institutions would lose a simple, natural, powerful and uniform way to ↵ monitor > mandate compliance by their authors. > > And what's more important: hit/download counts for authors, for their own ↵ articles, > and for their institutions, or hit/download counts for publishers' ↵ sites? > > But in any case there's a simple (though silly) compromise: > > All articles (whether subscription or Gold, emargoed or not) must be ↵ immediately > deposited in the author's institutional repository. > > Where the author either wishes to comply with a non-OA publisher's embargo > on Green OA, or with a Gold-OA publisher's desire to have hit/download ↵ counts > for its site, access to the deposit need not be made OA (until the embargo > elapses or until the author tires of accommodating publishers' importunate > nonsense). > > Stevan Harnad > > > > Nick Thieberger > Editor > Language Documentation & Conservation Journal > http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/ > > On 14 March 2013 11:16, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com> ↵ wrote: > Full Text: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/994-.html > > Executive Summary: The proposed HEFCE/REF Open Access [OA] mandate -- ↵ that in order to be eligible for REF, the peer-reviewed final draft of all ↵ journal articles must be deposited in the author’s institutional repository ↵ immediately upon publication, with embargoes applicable only to the date at ↵ which the article must be made OA – is excellent, and provides exactly the ↵ sort of complement required by the RCUK OA mandate. It ensures that authors ↵ deposit immediately and institutionally and it recruits their institutions to ↵ monitor and ensure compliance. > For journal articles, no individual or disciplinary exceptions ↵ or exemptions to the immediate-deposit are needed, but embargo length can be ↵ adapted to the discipline or even to exceptional individual cases. > Embargo length is even more important for open data, and ↵ should be carefully and flexibly adapted to the needs not only of disciplines ↵ and individuals, but of each individual research project. > Requiring monograph OA if the author does not wish to provide ↵ it is not reasonable, but perhaps many or most monograph authors would not mind ↵ depositing their texts as Closed Access. > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f > > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andras Holl / Holl Andras e-mail: holl AT konkoly.hu Konkoly Observatory / MTA CsFK CsI Tel.: +36 1 3919368 Fax: +36 1 ↵ 2754668 IT manager / Szamitastechn. rendszervez. Mail: H1525 POBox 67, Budapest, ↵ Hungary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .