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 AccessMandate
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don_Jean-Claude?= <jean.claude.guedon AT umontreal.ca>
This development is cryucial because it might convince the leaders of SciELO to ↵ release their content to other servers under conditions that would allow to do ↵ just that. Their focus on metric has led them sometimes to adopt very ↵ restrictive approaches to their conternt being also available elsewhere. Jean-Claude Guédon -----Original Message----- From: boai-forum-bounces AT ecs.soton.ac.uk on behalf of David Prosser Sent: Fri 3/15/2013 5:26 AM To: boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk Subject: [BOAI] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open ↵ AccessMandate JISC is funding a project, PIRUS, that looks to provide a framework whereby ↵ usage statistics can be combined from a number of sites. So if copies of an OA ↵ paper are on a centralised subject-based repository, a publisher's site, and a ↵ (or potentially many) university repositories you could get a feeling for the ↵ total usage of the paper. Details at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/pals3/pirus.aspx although it is a little while since I last heard an update about the project. ↵ One condition is that it is based on providing COUNTER-compliant usage ↵ statistics and I know that this is an issue for some smaller publishers. If a publisher (small or otherwise) were able to show the total usage of the ↵ article rather than just the usage at their own site it would, I hope, boost ↵ their argument for showing the value they are bringing to the process. Best wishes David On 15 Mar 2013, at 08:05, Andras Holl wrote: > > 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' ↵ 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 > > > > > > > > ↵ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ↵ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > <ATT00001..txt> -- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org .