Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: The funder identification pseudo-problem

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:44:32 -0400


--001a11c129d08ca48704fab68d74
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Paul,

I hope EDINA, Jisc, RCUK, HEFCE, Chygrove Ltd as well as OpenAIRE will also
try to harmonize with US Funding Agencies: Open Access is a global matter.

Best wishes, Stevan


On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Paul Walk <paul AT paulwalk.net> wrote:

> On a general note:
>
> I agree that the bottom-up, repository-mediated approach to attaching
> information about funder and grant/project to OA outputs is feasible and,
> it seems to me, the preferred approach.
>
> On a more specific note:
>
> It should be noted that the OpenAIRE approach to identifying the
> grant/project is well-designed for EU-funded projects, but does not so
> easily accommodate other funders (e.g. UK Research Council). This was
> discussed on this list last year [^1]
>
> EDINA is working with Jisc, RCUK, HEFCE and Chygrove Ltd (as well as
> repository software suppliers) to develop a metadata application-profile
> better suited (but not restricted to) the identification of UK funders an=
d
> projects.
>
> Details about this can be found at [^2] but please note that we are
> working on a significant revision to this to which should be published fo=
r
> comment in June.
>
> We remain in close contact with OpenAIRE (having discussed this at the
> COAR/OpenAIRE meeting last week) and have agreed to work closely to ensur=
e
> that we can achieve the best possible, mutual interoperability.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> [^1]:
> 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=3Dind1304&L=3Djisc-reposit=
ories&F=3D&S=3D&P=3D28729
> [^2]: http://rioxx.net
>
>
>
> On 31 May 2014, at 16:22, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM> 
wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 8:48 AM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us=
>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea that the authors identify the funding subprogram is 
clear.
> The problem is how to do that in a universally uniform way so the data ca=
n
> be properly aggregated across all authors and articles?
> >
> > By using the institutional repository metadata tagging scheme that
> Openaire has already designed for the EU, as Kathleen Shearer just noted =
in
> her posting.
> >
> > This can be implemented with the help of CRISes and CERIF in 
conformity
> with CASRAI -- and it would be an excellent idea if the US and EU
> collaborated convergently on this, "harmonizing" their policies 
rather th=
an
> diverging and going their own ways, since Public/Open Access is a global
> goal.
> >
> >>  But note that the specific goal of US Public Access Policy is 
that
> each fundee should make each article resulting from US Federal funding Op=
en
> Access within the designated time frame, crediting the funder.
> >
> > That is accomplished by each fundee making each article resulting 
from
> US Federal funding OA within the designated time frame -- by (1) depositi=
ng
> each article in their institutional repository along with (2) metadata ta=
gs
> specifying the funding source and  (3) by making the deposit OA within th=
e
> allowable embargo period.
> >
> > The part about  "do[ing] that in a universally uniform way so 
the data
> can be properly aggregated across all authors and articles" is a 
secondar=
y
> desideratum on the agenda (and can be  accomplished with the help of the
> Openaire scheme).
> >
> > But let's not let the tail wag the dog...
> >
> >> (Plus there are cases where the authors may not know.)
> >
> > Fundees (and their institutions) not knowing who is funding them? not
> knowing to whom they made the grant application? not knowing who informed
> them they were funded? not knowing the provenance of the cheques? not
> knowing whom to send the progress reports and final reports to?
> >
> > If there are any such foggy cases, they are probably rare enough not 
to
> have a significant effect on the overall implementation plan.
> >
> >> That is what the FundRef funder taxonomy is trying to do but it 
is not
> simple. By the way, at the just happened SSP annual meeting it was
> announced that CHORUS and SHARE will collaborate on a funder notification
> system. This may help.
> >
> > Data can and should of course be SHAREd. Publishers too can of course
> harvest metadata from IRs.
> >
> > But on no account should publishers be entrusted to run the show, in 
th=
e
> implementation of the US Public Access Policy. The source of the
> funding-source data is the funders (top-down) and the fundees and their
> institutions (bottom-up).
> >
> > And these are perfectly capable of doing and storing their own
> record-keeping! Publishers (and CHORUS) having nothing whatsoever to do
> with it.
> >
> >>  Reconfiguring the agency contract data systems to include 
subprogram
> data is probably not feasible. It would be a big job and the agencies are
> not that interested in access. Their challenge is spending the money. Mos=
t
> consider public access a chore, especially since there is no funding for
> it, perhaps even a threat because it will lead to new kinds of performanc=
e
> assessment.
> >
> > Fine. The agencies are not intrinsically interested in access. They 
jus=
t
> have to fulfill their mandate (just as fundees do), which has now become
> not just to fund research but also to make it a condition of the funding
> that the resulting articles must be made OA.
> >
> > So each funder now stipulates to each fundee that one of the 
conditions
> for receiving the funding is now that it must be deposited in the fundee'=
s
> institutional repository (and made OA within the allowed embargo window).
> >
> > It then becomes the reponsibility of the fundee to comply, and the
> responsibility of the fundee's institution to ensure that the fundee
> complies -- by depositing the article and its funder-idenifying metadata =
in
> the IR and making it OA within the allowable window. All IR deposits are
> time-stamped by the IR software; so is the date the deposit is made OA.
> >
> > So the optimal system is for the fundee to deposit the final refereed
> draft of each article, together with its funder metadata, on the date it =
is
> accepted for publication (the acceptance letter can be deposited alongsid=
e
> it too, in closed access) and to make the deposit OA either immediately
> (for the 60% of publishers that do not embargo OA) or when the allowable
> publisher embargo has elapsed.
> >
> > That in essence is all there is to it: The agency fulfills its
> obligations, the fundee institution fulfills its obligations, and the
> fundees fulfill their obligations under the US Public Access Policy -- an=
d
> not only is OA provided (at the latest) after allowable embargoes have
> elapsed, but "Almost-OA" can be provided immediately as of 
deposit, with
> the help of each IR's Copy-Request Button.
> >
> > Please keep this as simple and feasible as it really is, rather than
> adding far-fetched worries about whether fundees and their institutions
> really know who their funders are (of course they do!) and whether the
> funder metadata can be matched with the article deposit (of course it can=
!).
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >
> > On May 30, 2014, at 8:26 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT 
GMAIL.COM> wrote=
:
> >
> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:58 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.u=
s>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Stevan, you seem to think that I am advocating for a publisher 
based
> solution but I am not. I am simply trying to find a good program design. =
In
> fact I think CHORUS has wandered away from that design, to the point wher=
e
> the funding agencies may not try to use it.
> >>
> >> Well that much is very welcome news!
> >>
> >> But as for the funder identification problem, it is far from 
trivial.
> What you describe below does not work. There is at present no simple way =
to
> tell which program funded the research that led to a given article. The
> grant information does not include this data. How then shall it be create=
d
> (and made uniform)? This is a deep problem.
> >>
> >> David, I can only repeat: The author of the article (at the very 
least=
)
> -- and hence also the author's institution -- know exactly where they got
> the funding (program, subprogram, grants officer, everything). And they a=
re
> very eager to credit their funders for their article output, to justify t=
he
> funding, to get the next grant instalment, and for renewal or new grant
> applications.
> >>
> >> In the bottom-up option (2), they simply add a metadata tag for 
the
> funding's program/subprogram (in addition to metadata tag for the
> grant-contract-and-number) in the IR along with the article.
> >>
> >> In the perhaps more sensible option (1), the US Federal funders 
of
> research create a database that links their own grant-contract-and-number=
s
> with their own program/subprogram identifiers (and then the IR need only
> tag the grant-contract-and-number).
> >>
> >> No need for publishers to do any of that. And I don't know why 
you are
> suggesting it's such a big deal: There are a finite number of US Federal
> funding agencies, program/subprograms, grant-contract-and-number, and all
> the information is know and a matter of record. They have the data; they
> need only systematically integrate it into a database.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, authors/institutions can do it distributedly.
> >>
> >> In neither case is it a big deal.
> >>
> >> It only appears like a problem if you look at it from the 
publisher's
> viewpoint, where authors are only in the habit of crediting their
> grant-contract-and-number in the acknowledgements sections of their
> articles, rather than giving fuller source information.
> >>
> >> But authors and their institutions have the fuller information. 
And
> effective convergent funder and institutional mandates (to deposit in the
> institutional repository) together with simple, systematic compliance
> monitoring procedures will ensure that all the requisite metadata are
> deposited with the article.
> >>
> >> Moreover, how this funder identification problem is solved will
> probably dictate the form of the US Public Access program.
> >>
> >> Well, we've made some progress: It won't be the publishers' 
CHORUS
> doing it. That's a  non-started, and has been all along.
> >>
> >> Now the choice is between top-down, centrally (1) and bottom-up,
> distributedly (2).
> >>
> >> Maybe it's easiest to start bottom-up, distributedly
> (authors/institutions) and then the funders can harvest the pairs of
> grant-contract-and-number and program/subprogram metadata tags in the the
> IRs for all of their articles in order to build up a central database of
> their own.
> >>
> >> (This institutional-deposit/central harvesting (or institutional
> export) procedure is by far the optimal mechanism for all article metadat=
a
> in the IRs and also, if desired, for the full-texts.)
> >>
> >> Stevan Harnad
> >>
> >> On May 30, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT 
GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Wojick <
> dwojick AT craigellachie.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Stevan, what you describe sounds somewhat like the SHARE 
program,
> which is one of the emerging proposed mechanisms for the US Public Access
> program. See my
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/26/universities-propose-to-sha=
re-federal-funding-based-articles/
> from a year ago.
> >>>
> >>> David, "SHARE" is of course much better than CHORUS 
because it leaves
> access-provision in the hands of the universities and research institutio=
ns
> rather than journal publishers. And "SHARE" really just means 
that the IR=
s
> do it rather than the publishers.
> >>>
> >>> But I certainly don't agree that the following is any problem
> whatsoever:
> >>>
> >>> SHARE has its own specific problems, as does CHORUS. But as 
far as
> funder identification goes, SHARE and CHORUS share the problem. This is
> because the grant information that institutions get does not identify the
> specific funding program. For example, in DOE the grant contract and gran=
t
> number merely say that the grant is from the Office of Science, which fun=
ds
> about $5 billion a year. Which of their many programs and sub-programs
> funded a given grant is not specified. So the institution still has to ge=
t
> that information from the author, just as the publisher does. And the
> resulting data must be uniform across all institutions, just as with all
> CHORUS publishers.
> >>>
> >>> So the grant-contract-and-number does not specify the program 
and
> subprogram. But the specific funder certainly knows what the program and
> subprogram is. And the author-and-institution certainly knows what the
> program and subprogram is. So what's the problem that necessitates
> publishers (of all parties) to become the custodians of these data, which
> have nothing to do with publishers?
> >>>
> >>> (a) The exact source of the grant can be disambiguated 
top-down, with
> the funders linking the grant-contract-and-number to the exact funding
> source. That seems the most obvious way to do it. Then the IR need merely
> include the grant-contract-and-number tag in the institutional repository
> metadata for each funded article.
> >>>
> >>> (b) Or it can be disambiguated bottom-up, with the
> author-and-institution including an exact funding source tag in addition =
to
> the grant-contract-and-number tag in the institutional repository metadat=
a
> for each funded article.
> >>>
> >>> Either way, the problem is trivial, and certainly no grounds
> whatsoever to outsource it to publishers!
> >>>
> >>> Moreover, while the publisher knows about the article, but 
not the
> specific funder, the institution need know about neither. At present few,
> if any, institutional repositories have deposit enforcement that would me=
et
> federal standards. Most repository programs are voluntary, so an unreliab=
le
> source of ALL funded articles. And many institutions have no repository,
> especially federal laboratories. So all in all the institutions have much
> further to go than the publishers, as far as the federal program goes. Ke=
ep
> in mind that the paradigm federal access program at this point is PubMed
> Central, which works with publishers, not institutions.
> >>>
> >>> This is why I have been urging for years that deposit should 
always b=
e
> convergent, not divergent, with all funders and all institutions mandatin=
g
> institutional deposit, not institution-external deposit. (Deposits can th=
en
> be automatically exported to or harvested by any institution-external
> repositories desired, such as PubMed Central.)
> >>>
> >>> (Institutions that don't yet have a repository are just a 
piece of
> free software, some disk-space, and some sysad time from having one.
> Another non-problem.)
> >>>
> >>> Convergent deposit mandates immediately recruit institutions 
to
> monitor and ensure full and timely compliance with the funder OA mandate,
> whether or not the institution has an OA mandate of its own (and in fact =
it
> motivates the institution to adopt an OA mandate of its own, for all of i=
ts
> research output, funded and unfunded).
> >>>
> >>> Again, no grounds whatsoever to outsource any of this to 
publishers.
> >>>
> >>> This is not to say that SHARE cannot win the public access 
race. In
> fact it is rumored that NSF may go the SHARE route, while DOE may go the
> CHORUS route. NSF works solely with universities, unlike DOE.
> >>>
> >>> Well, let's hope that DOE too sees the wisdom and 
practicality of
> taking the convergent route, with institutions instead of entrusting this
> funder/institution record-keeping function to a third party with a huge
> conflict of interest (publishers).
> >>>
> >>> Stevan Harnad
> >>>
> >>> At 12:12 PM 5/30/2014, you wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:20 PM, David Wojick <
> dwojick AT craigellachie.us > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The core challenge in the US Public Access program is to 
precisely
> identify the funders of the research that leads to a given journal articl=
e.
> This sounds easy but it can be a difficult and complex process. The US
> Government is a vast and complex organization, with hundreds of different
> offices sponsoring research. Moreover, each office can be referred to in
> many different ways, creating a major name disambiguation problem in the
> funder data.
> >>> To repeat:
> >>> It is not for publishers to do record-keeping for the 
government on
> the articles they publish, dearly as publishers no doubt wish to hold ont=
o
> this further potential chain of control over research and researchers'
> work.=C3=82
> >>> Researchers' own institutions are the natural ones to do 
this. As I
> wrote in my previous posting on this very same issue:
> >>>
> >>> All authors have institutions -- either a university or a 
research
> institution. Those institutions have a huge stake in ensuring that their
> researchers comply with their funder requirements (and they already revie=
w
> all grant applications). Institutions are hence the ones in the position =
to
> monitor their own researchers' journal article output, ensure that the
> funder (if any) is specified in the repository metadata for each publishe=
d
> article, and, most important of all, ensure that the deposit is done with=
in
> the required time-frame (see BOAI recommendation above).=C3=82
> >>>
> >>> Repository deposits are time-stamped. Researchers can even be 
asked t=
o
> deposit the journal's acceptance letter (in closed access) alongside the
> final refereed draft, for record-keeping and compliance monitoring
> purposes. The institution can thereby systematically monitor and ensure
> timely compliance with funder (and institutional) deposit mandates. (The
> repository software and the Copy Request Button can then handle any
> allowable publisher embargo periods in a simple, straightforward way --vi=
a
> the Button till the embargo elapses, and then the deposit automatically
> becomes OA.)
> >>>
> >>>> CHORUS and FundRef are attacking this funder 
identification problem
> using a standardized menu of funder names and DOIs. The basic idea is tha=
t
> the submitting author will pick out the standard names of all the offices
> that contributed to the research that underlies the submitted article.
> Again this sounds simple but it is not, because building a comprehensive
> taxonomy of all possible funders is far from simple.
> >>> Far from simple -- and far from necessary. Authors' own 
institutions
> are the ones that are best positioned to stay abreast of the grants that
> their researchers have received (in fact they already do so), and their
> repositories can automatically record what resulting articles are publish=
ed
> and deposited, and when.
> >>>>
> >>>> To begin with they have elected to build this menu to 
identify all
> the funders in the world, not just the US Federal funders. As a result th=
e
> menu of funders already has six thousands names and it will probably have
> many thousands more before it stabilizes. The size of the funder list alo=
ne
> thus creates a big discovery problem, because many funders have similar
> names.
> >>> Let's hope that while (all? some?) publishers are spending 
their time
> constructing a mega-database of all their authors' potential funders
> worldwide, institutions will do the much more simple and sensible thing o=
f
> constructing a database of all their own employees' funding. (Indeed, the=
y
> do it already; they need only pool this information in their IR metadata
> (and their CRIS, if they have one).
> >>>
> >>> Let journal publishers just manage the peer review of the 
papers
> submitted to them and stop trying to create a monopoly over everything
> else. The research community is perfectly capable of doing its own
> record-keeping, thank you very much!
> >>>
> >>>> Then there is the hierarchy problem, especially within 
the vast US
> Government complex. Funding offices occur at many different scales, which
> are arranged within one another in the tree-like organization chart. For
> example in the US Energy Department there may be five or more layers of
> funding offices. Saying which layer should be named in the funding data f=
or
> a given article is not simple. Moreover if offices in different layers ar=
e
> named for different articles, then the resulting data will have to someho=
w
> be aggregated by layer in order to be useful. To make matters worse there
> are also cross cutting programs that involve multiple offices. In short a=
ny
> taxonomy of US Federal funding offices is going to be a complex system, n=
ot
> a simple listing.
> >>>>
> >>> Needless pseudo-complications. The researcher receives a 
grant. The
> grant has an agency and number. That agency and number is one of the
> metadata tags on all articles arising from that funding that are deposite=
d
> in the IR.
> >>>> Given these complexities it may be better to have an 
editor name the
> funders based on the acknowledgements section of the article, rather than
> presenting the author with a complex taxonomy of possible funders. There
> seems to be some experimentation in this direction, but it is a labor
> intensive solution. The question is also whether the resulting data would
> be accurate enough for agency purposes; given that acknowledgement has be=
en
> a relatively informal process. There is also the question of when to
> collect this funder data, given the labor involved. Should it be upon
> submission or after acceptance?"
> >>> The above metadata are enough. Let those who wish to harvest 
it do so=
,
> and do with it, as they will. Publishers have nothing to do with any of
> this.
> >>>
> >>> And a reminder: We are talking about monitoring and ensuring
> compliance with Green OA self-archiving mandates here.
> >>>
> >>> How funders plan to handle billing and documentation for any 
Gold OA
> publishing charges that they may be foolish enough to cover out of scarce
> research money while the money for Fair-Gold OA is still locked into
> subscription journals is not what we are discussing here (and certainly n=
ot
> my concern.)
> >>>
> >>> Stevan Harnad
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Paul Walk
> http://www.paulwalk.net
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>

--001a11c129d08ca48704fab68d74
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div 
dir=3D"ltr">Paul,=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>I hope EDINA,=C2=A0Jisc, RC=
UK, HEFCE, Chygrove Ltd=C2=A0as well as OpenAIRE will also try to harmonize=
 with US Funding Agencies: Open Access is a global 
matter.<div><br><div>Bes=
t wishes, Stevan<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, May 3=
1, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Paul Walk <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:paul AT =
paulwalk.net" target=3D"_blank">paul AT 
paulwalk.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
On a general note:<br>
<br>
I agree that the bottom-up, repository-mediated approach to attaching infor=
mation about funder and grant/project to OA outputs is feasible and, it see=
ms to me, the preferred approach.<br>
<br>
On a more specific note:<br>
<br>
It should be noted that the OpenAIRE approach to identifying the grant/proj=
ect is well-designed for EU-funded projects, but does not so easily accommo=
date other funders (e.g. UK Research Council). This was discussed on this l=
ist last year [^1]<br>

<br>
EDINA is working with Jisc, RCUK, HEFCE and Chygrove Ltd (as well as reposi=
tory software suppliers) to develop a metadata application-profile better s=
uited (but not restricted to) the identification of UK funders and projects=
.<br>

<br>
Details about this can be found at [^2] but please note that we are working=
 on a significant revision to this to which should be published for comment=
 in June.<br>
<br>
We remain in close contact with OpenAIRE (having discussed this at the COAR=
/OpenAIRE meeting last week) and have agreed to work closely to ensure that=
 we can achieve the best possible, mutual interoperability.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
[^1]: <a 
href=3D"https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=3Dind1304&a=
mp;L=3Djisc-repositories&amp;F=3D&amp;S=3D&amp;P=3D28729" 
target=3D"_blank"=
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=3Dind1304&amp;L=3Djisc-repo=
sitories&amp;F=3D&amp;S=3D&amp;P=3D28729</a><br>

[^2]: <a href=3D"http://rioxx.net" 
target=3D"_blank">http://rioxx.net</a><b=
r>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 31 May 2014, at 16:22, Stevan Harnad &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:amsciforum AT GM=
AIL.COM">amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 8:48 AM, David Wojick &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:dw=
ojick AT craigellachie.us">dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; The idea that the authors identify the funding subprogram is 
clea=
r. The problem is how to do that in a universally uniform way so the data c=
an be properly aggregated across all authors and articles?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; By using the institutional repository metadata tagging scheme that 
Ope=
naire has already designed for the EU, as Kathleen Shearer just noted in he=
r posting.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This can be implemented with the help of CRISes and CERIF in 
conformit=
y with CASRAI -- and it would be an excellent idea if the US and EU collabo=
rated convergently on this, &quot;harmonizing&quot; their policies 
rather t=
han diverging and going their own ways, since Public/Open Access is a globa=
l goal.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; =C2=A0But note that the specific goal of US Public Access 
Policy i=
s that each fundee should make each article resulting from US Federal fundi=
ng Open Access within the designated time frame, crediting the 
funder.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; That is accomplished by each fundee making each article resulting 
from=
 US Federal funding OA within the designated time frame -- by (1) depositin=
g each article in their institutional repository along with (2) metadata ta=
gs specifying the funding source and =C2=A0(3) by making the deposit OA wit=
hin the allowable embargo period.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; The part about =C2=A0&quot;do[ing] that in a universally uniform 
way s=
o the data can be properly aggregated across all authors and 
articles&quot;=
 is a secondary desideratum on the agenda (and can be =C2=A0accomplished wi=
th the help of the Openaire scheme).<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; But let&#39;s not let the tail wag the dog...<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; (Plus there are cases where the authors may not 
know.)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Fundees (and their institutions) not knowing who is funding them? not 
=
knowing to whom they made the grant application? not knowing who informed t=
hem they were funded? not knowing the provenance of the cheques? not knowin=
g whom to send the progress reports and final reports to?<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; If there are any such foggy cases, they are probably rare enough not 
t=
o have a significant effect on the overall implementation plan.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; That is what the FundRef funder taxonomy is trying to do but 
it is=
 not simple. By the way, at the just happened SSP annual meeting it was ann=
ounced that CHORUS and SHARE will collaborate on a funder notification syst=
em. This may help.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; Data can and should of course be SHAREd. Publishers too can of course 
=
harvest metadata from IRs.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; But on no account should publishers be entrusted to run the show, in 
t=
he implementation of the US Public Access Policy. The source of the funding=
-source data is the funders (top-down) and the fundees and their institutio=
ns (bottom-up).<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; And these are perfectly capable of doing and storing their own 
record-=
keeping! Publishers (and CHORUS) having nothing whatsoever to do with it.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; =C2=A0Reconfiguring the agency contract data systems to 
include su=
bprogram data is probably not feasible. It would be a big job and the agenc=
ies are not that interested in access. Their challenge is spending the mone=
y. Most consider public access a chore, especially since there is no fundin=
g for it, perhaps even a threat because it will lead to new kinds of perfor=
mance assessment.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; Fine. The agencies are not intrinsically interested in access. They 
ju=
st have to fulfill their mandate (just as fundees do), which has now become=
 not just to fund research but also to make it a condition of the funding t=
hat the resulting articles must be made OA.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; So each funder now stipulates to each fundee that one of the 
condition=
s for receiving the funding is now that it must be deposited in the 
fundee&=
#39;s institutional repository (and made OA within the allowed embargo wind=
ow).<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; It then becomes the reponsibility of the fundee to comply, and the 
res=
ponsibility of the fundee&#39;s institution to ensure that the fundee 
compl=
ies -- by depositing the article and its funder-idenifying metadata in the =
IR and making it OA within the allowable window. All IR deposits are time-s=
tamped by the IR software; so is the date the deposit is made OA.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; So the optimal system is for the fundee to deposit the final refereed 
=
draft of each article, together with its funder metadata, on the date it is=
 accepted for publication (the acceptance letter can be deposited alongside=
 it too, in closed access) and to make the deposit OA either immediately (f=
or the 60% of publishers that do not embargo OA) or when the allowable publ=
isher embargo has elapsed.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; That in essence is all there is to it: The agency fulfills its 
obligat=
ions, the fundee institution fulfills its obligations, and the fundees fulf=
ill their obligations under the US Public Access Policy -- and not only is =
OA provided (at the latest) after allowable embargoes have elapsed, but 
&qu=
ot;Almost-OA&quot; can be provided immediately as of deposit, with the 
help=
 of each IR&#39;s Copy-Request Button.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; Please keep this as simple and feasible as it really is, rather than 
a=
dding far-fetched worries about whether fundees and their institutions real=
ly know who their funders are (of course they do!) and whether the funder m=
etadata can be matched with the article deposit (of course it can!).<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; Stevan Harnad<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On May 30, 2014, at 8:26 PM, Stevan Harnad &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:amsci=
forum AT GMAIL.COM">amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM</a>&gt; 
wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
<a hr=
ef=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_blank">http:=
//web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><br>
&gt;&gt; On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:58 PM, David Wojick &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailt=
o:dwojick AT craigellachie.us">dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Stevan, you seem to think that I am advocating for a publisher 
bas=
ed solution but I am not. I am simply trying to find a good program design.=
 In fact I think CHORUS has wandered away from that design, to the point wh=
ere the funding agencies may not try to use it.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Well that much is very welcome news!<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; But as for the funder identification problem, it is far from 
trivi=
al. What you describe below does not work. There is at present no simple wa=
y to tell which program funded the research that led to a given article. Th=
e grant information does not include this data. How then shall it be create=
d (and made uniform)? This is a deep problem.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; David, I can only repeat: The author of the article (at the 
very l=
east) -- and hence also the author&#39;s institution -- know exactly where 
=
they got the funding (program, subprogram, grants officer, everything). And=
 they are very eager to credit their funders for their article output, to j=
ustify the funding, to get the next grant instalment, and for renewal or ne=
w grant applications.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; In the bottom-up option (2), they simply add a metadata tag 
for th=
e funding&#39;s program/subprogram (in addition to metadata tag for the 
gra=
nt-contract-and-number) in the IR along with the article.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; In the perhaps more sensible option (1), the US Federal 
funders of=
 research create a database that links their own grant-contract-and-numbers=
 with their own program/subprogram identifiers (and then the IR need only t=
ag the grant-contract-and-number).<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; No need for publishers to do any of that. And I don&#39;t 
know why=
 you are suggesting it&#39;s such a big deal: There are a finite number of 
=
US Federal funding agencies, program/subprograms, grant-contract-and-number=
, and all the information is know and a matter of record. They have the dat=
a; they need only systematically integrate it into a database.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Alternatively, authors/institutions can do it 
distributedly.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; In neither case is it a big deal.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; It only appears like a problem if you look at it from the 
publishe=
r&#39;s viewpoint, where authors are only in the habit of crediting their 
g=
rant-contract-and-number in the acknowledgements sections of their articles=
, rather than giving fuller source information.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; But authors and their institutions have the fuller 
information. An=
d effective convergent funder and institutional mandates (to deposit in the=
 institutional repository) together with simple, systematic compliance moni=
toring procedures will ensure that all the requisite metadata are deposited=
 with the article.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Moreover, how this funder identification problem is solved 
will pr=
obably dictate the form of the US Public Access program.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Well, we&#39;ve made some progress: It won&#39;t be 
the publishers=
&#39; CHORUS doing it. That&#39;s a =C2=A0non-started, and has been all 
alo=
ng.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Now the choice is between top-down, centrally (1) and 
bottom-up, d=
istributedly (2).<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Maybe it&#39;s easiest to start bottom-up, distributedly 
(authors/=
institutions) and then the funders can harvest the pairs of grant-contract-=
and-number and program/subprogram metadata tags in the the IRs for all of t=
heir articles in order to build up a central database of their own.<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; (This institutional-deposit/central harvesting (or 
institutional e=
xport) procedure is by far the optimal mechanism for all article metadata i=
n the IRs and also, if desired, for the full-texts.)<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Stevan Harnad<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On May 30, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Stevan Harnad &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:a=
msciforum AT GMAIL.COM">amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM</a>&gt; 
wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example 
unsubscribe): <=
a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_blank">h=
ttp://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Wojick 
&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us">dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Stevan, what you describe sounds somewhat like the 
SHARE progr=
am, which is one of the emerging proposed mechanisms for the US Public Acce=
ss program. See my <a 
href=3D"http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/26=
/universities-propose-to-share-federal-funding-based-articles/" 
target=3D"_=
blank">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/26/universities-propose-t=
o-share-federal-funding-based-articles/</a> from a year ago.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; David, &quot;SHARE&quot; is of course much 
better than CHORUS =
because it leaves access-provision in the hands of the universities and res=
earch institutions rather than journal publishers. And 
&quot;SHARE&quot; re=
ally just means that the IRs do it rather than the publishers.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; But I certainly don&#39;t agree that the following 
is any prob=
lem whatsoever:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; SHARE has its own specific problems, as does CHORUS. 
But as fa=
r as funder identification goes, SHARE and CHORUS share the problem. This i=
s because the grant information that institutions get does not identify the=
 specific funding program. For example, in DOE the grant contract and grant=
 number merely say that the grant is from the Office of Science, which fund=
s about $5 billion a year. Which of their many programs and sub-programs fu=
nded a given grant is not specified. So the institution still has to get th=
at information from the author, just as the publisher does. And the resulti=
ng data must be uniform across all institutions, just as with all CHORUS pu=
blishers.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; So the grant-contract-and-number does not specify the 
program =
and subprogram. But the specific funder certainly knows what the program an=
d subprogram is. And the author-and-institution certainly knows what the pr=
ogram and subprogram is. So what&#39;s the problem that necessitates 
publis=
hers (of all parties) to become the custodians of these data, which have no=
thing to do with publishers?<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; (a) The exact source of the grant can be disambiguated 
top-dow=
n, with the funders linking the grant-contract-and-number to the exact fund=
ing source. That seems the most obvious way to do it. Then the IR need mere=
ly include the grant-contract-and-number tag in the institutional repositor=
y metadata for each funded article.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; (b) Or it can be disambiguated bottom-up, with the 
author-and-=
institution including an exact funding source tag in addition to the grant-=
contract-and-number tag in the institutional repository metadata for each f=
unded article.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Either way, the problem is trivial, and certainly no 
grounds w=
hatsoever to outsource it to publishers!<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Moreover, while the publisher knows about the article, 
but not=
 the specific funder, the institution need know about neither. At present f=
ew, if any, institutional repositories have deposit enforcement that would =
meet federal standards. Most repository programs are voluntary, so an unrel=
iable source of ALL funded articles. And many institutions have no reposito=
ry, especially federal laboratories. So all in all the institutions have mu=
ch further to go than the publishers, as far as the federal program goes. K=
eep in mind that the paradigm federal access program at this point is PubMe=
d Central, which works with publishers, not institutions.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; This is why I have been urging for years that deposit 
should a=
lways be convergent, not divergent, with all funders and all institutions m=
andating institutional deposit, not institution-external deposit. (Deposits=
 can then be automatically exported to or harvested by any institution-exte=
rnal repositories desired, such as PubMed Central.)<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; (Institutions that don&#39;t yet have a repository 
are just a =
piece of free software, some disk-space, and some sysad time from having on=
e. Another non-problem.)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Convergent deposit mandates immediately recruit 
institutions t=
o monitor and ensure full and timely compliance with the funder OA mandate,=
 whether or not the institution has an OA mandate of its own (and in fact i=
t motivates the institution to adopt an OA mandate of its own, for all of i=
ts research output, funded and unfunded).<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Again, no grounds whatsoever to outsource any of this 
to publi=
shers.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; This is not to say that SHARE cannot win the public 
access rac=
e. In fact it is rumored that NSF may go the SHARE route, while DOE may go =
the CHORUS route. NSF works solely with universities, unlike DOE.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Well, let&#39;s hope that DOE too sees the wisdom 
and practica=
lity of taking the convergent route, with institutions instead of entrustin=
g this funder/institution record-keeping function to a third party with a h=
uge conflict of interest (publishers).<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Stevan Harnad<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; At 12:12 PM 5/30/2014, you wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:20 PM, David Wojick 
&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us">dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us</a> &gt; wrot=
e:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The core challenge in the US Public Access 
program is to p=
recisely identify the funders of the research that leads to a given journal=
 article. This sounds easy but it can be a difficult and complex process. T=
he US Government is a vast and complex organization, with hundreds of diffe=
rent offices sponsoring research. Moreover, each office can be referred to =
in many different ways, creating a major name disambiguation problem in the=
 funder data.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt; To repeat:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; It is not for publishers to do record-keeping for the 
governme=
nt on the articles they publish, dearly as publishers no doubt wish to hold=
 onto this further potential chain of control over research and researchers=
&#39; work.=C3=82<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt; Researchers&#39; own institutions are the natural 
ones to do t=
his. As I wrote in my previous posting on this very same issue:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; All authors have institutions -- either a university 
or a rese=
arch institution. Those institutions have a huge stake in ensuring that the=
ir researchers comply with their funder requirements (and they already revi=
ew all grant applications). Institutions are hence the ones in the position=
 to monitor their own researchers&#39; journal article output, ensure that 
=
the funder (if any) is specified in the repository metadata for each publis=
hed article, and, most important of all, ensure that the deposit is done wi=
thin the required time-frame (see BOAI recommendation above).=C3=82<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Repository deposits are time-stamped. Researchers can 
even be =
asked to deposit the journal&#39;s acceptance letter (in closed access) 
alo=
ngside the final refereed draft, for record-keeping and compliance monitori=
ng purposes. The institution can thereby systematically monitor and ensure =
timely compliance with funder (and institutional) deposit mandates. (The re=
pository software and the Copy Request Button can then handle any allowable=
 publisher embargo periods in a simple, straightforward way --via the Butto=
n till the embargo elapses, and then the deposit automatically becomes OA.)=
<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; CHORUS and FundRef are attacking this funder 
identificatio=
n problem using a standardized menu of funder names and DOIs. The basic ide=
a is that the submitting author will pick out the standard names of all the=
 offices that contributed to the research that underlies the submitted arti=
cle. Again this sounds simple but it is not, because building a comprehensi=
ve taxonomy of all possible funders is far from simple.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt; Far from simple -- and far from necessary. 
Authors&#39; own in=
stitutions are the ones that are best positioned to stay abreast of the gra=
nts that their researchers have received (in fact they already do so), and =
their repositories can automatically record what resulting articles are pub=
lished and deposited, and when.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; To begin with they have elected to build this 
menu to iden=
tify all the funders in the world, not just the US Federal funders. As a re=
sult the menu of funders already has six thousands names and it will probab=
ly have many thousands more before it stabilizes. The size of the funder li=
st alone thus creates a big discovery problem, because many funders have si=
milar names.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt; Let&#39;s hope that while (all? some?) publishers 
are spending=
 their time constructing a mega-database of all their authors&#39; 
potentia=
l funders worldwide, institutions will do the much more simple and sensible=
 thing of constructing a database of all their own employees&#39; funding. 
=
(Indeed, they do it already; they need only pool this information in their =
IR metadata (and their CRIS, if they have one).<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Let journal publishers just manage the peer review of 
the pape=
rs submitted to them and stop trying to create a monopoly over everything e=
lse. The research community is perfectly capable of doing its own record-ke=
eping, thank you very much!<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Then there is the hierarchy problem, 
especially within the=
 vast US Government complex. Funding offices occur at many different scales=
, which are arranged within one another in the tree-like organization chart=
. For example in the US Energy Department there may be five or more layers =
of funding offices. Saying which layer should be named in the funding data =
for a given article is not simple. Moreover if offices in different layers =
are named for different articles, then the resulting data will have to some=
how be aggregated by layer in order to be useful. To make matters worse the=
re are also cross cutting programs that involve multiple offices. In short =
any taxonomy of US Federal funding offices is going to be a complex system,=
 not a simple listing.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Needless pseudo-complications. The researcher receives 
a grant=
. The grant has an agency and number. That agency and number is one of the =
metadata tags on all articles arising from that funding that are deposited =
in the IR.<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Given these complexities it may be better to 
have an edito=
r name the funders based on the acknowledgements section of the article, ra=
ther than presenting the author with a complex taxonomy of possible funders=
. There seems to be some experimentation in this direction, but it is a lab=
or intensive solution. The question is also whether the resulting data woul=
d be accurate enough for agency purposes; given that acknowledgement has be=
en a relatively informal process. There is also the question of when to col=
lect this funder data, given the labor involved. Should it be upon submissi=
on or after acceptance?&quot;<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt; The above metadata are enough. Let those who wish to 
harvest i=
t do so, and do with it, as they will. Publishers have nothing to do with a=
ny of this.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; And a reminder: We are talking about monitoring and 
ensuring c=
ompliance with Green OA self-archiving mandates here.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; How funders plan to handle billing and documentation 
for any G=
old OA publishing charges that they may be foolish enough to cover out of s=
carce research money while the money for Fair-Gold OA is still locked into =
subscription journals is not what we are discussing here (and certainly not=
 my concern.)<br>

&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Stevan Harnad<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------<br>
Paul Walk<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.paulwalk.net" 
target=3D"_blank">http://www.paulwalk.n=
et</a><br>
-------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c129d08ca48704fab68d74--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .