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>
An immediate-deposit mandate moots most of this discussion. Versions and rights ↵ need not be checked if the mandate simply says: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." So all this discussion is about what *else* you can do, and when. Here's a list: 1. A sensible author will make the immediate-deposit OA immediately, just as ↵ physicists have been successfully doing for decades with no problems. 2. A cautious author will look up the publsher's embargo policy as well as the ↵ funder's embargo limit, and make the immediate-deposit OA at whichever date comes first. 3. A timid author will look up the publsher's embargo policy and make the immediate-deposit OA at whatever date the publisher indicates. 4. A foolish author will simply make the immediate-deposit and leave it as Closed Access (attending to reprint requests generated by the request copy ↵ Button on an individual case by case basis). The speed with which we reach 100% Green OA and beyond depends on the relative proportion of foolish, timid, cautious and sensible authors. But please, while we keep speculating, let us all mandate immediate-deposit. I don't mean just: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." Improve on that in any way you like: "and make it OA immediately" "and make it OA immediately or after X months at the latest" But in any case, deposit immediately! Stevan Harnad On 2013-03-21, at 9:40 AM, Hans PfeiffenbergAer <hans.pfeiffenberger AT ↵ awi.de> wrote: > > Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody: >> By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the ↵ institution >> can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. > wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution > > - may have a copy if the identity of the file submitted or its equivalence ↵ with the version of record can be established > > - may have an OA copy. But to establish that, someone at the institution ↵ (the library?) must check the copyright notice in it (if any) and possibly ↵ consult with the authors about his/her contract with the publisher (because, ↵ legally, something found on the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not ↵ count), ... > > > I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other side as ↵ well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should therefore be stopped. > > Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from being ↵ about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of science. And setting up ↵ of mandates and policies which are the least costly to enforce. Cost to the ↵ admin dept., of course! Where the library, if involved in this, may morph into ↵ a branch of admin. > > How very German! Enjoy! > > > best, > > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL AT eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .