Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[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>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:24:30 -0400


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:  openaccess@soros.org .