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: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
It is importunate for a publisher to importune institutions or funders not to ↵ mandate immediate deposit in the author's institutional repository, whether or not the publisher is Gold, just as it is importunate for a publisher to importune ↵ institutions or funders not to mandate making the immediate-deposit immediately OA. Both are cases of subordinating the needs of research and researchers to the needs of publishers: The tail trying to wag the dog. As Les Carr's posting has indicated, there are software means of integrating dowload counts at multiple sites. That's certainly preferable to compromising the growth of worldwide OA in the interests of Gold OA start-up journals struggling to make ends meet, by weakening their mandate-compliance mechanisms. The best prospect of relief and sustainability for struggling Gold OA journals ↵ is to allow effective Green OA self-archiving mandates to generate 100% Green OA as soon as ↵ possible worldwide. Then Gold OA can be paid for out of the windfall subscription cancellation ↵ savings induced by the universal Green OA self-archiving. Stevan Harnad On 2013-03-15, at 2:47 AM, Nick Thieberger <thien AT unimelb.edu.au> ↵ 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' ↵ importunate 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 > > > > -- > 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 .