[BOAI] Re: RCUK Policy: query over any requirement to deposit

[Stevan Harnad]

Mark Thorley has posted "RCUK Open Access Policy – When to go Green and
When to go Gold<http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/09/28/rcuk-open-access-policy-when-to-go-green-and-when-to-go-gold/#comment-309>"
on the RCUK site.

Here are four further questions about the policy:

*1. Policy Wording.* As repeatedly mentioned at the Imperial College Forum,
the wording of the present RCUK policy is confusing and leads to the
misunderstanding that fundees may not choose (free) Green (6-12) unless the
journal does not offer (paid) Gold (CC-BY). Isn't the place to prevent this
confusion and misunderstanding in the wording of the policy itself, rather
than just in accompanying guidance to the interpretation of the wording of
the policy?

*2. Perverse Effects.* Is RCUK not concerned that only allowing fundees to
publish in journals that offer either (paid) CC-BY Gold or (free) 6-12
Green (or both) will induce subscription journals (60% of which currently
allow immediate, unembragoed Green) to now offer hybrid (paid) CC-BY Gold
while increasing their Green option to 13+ to make sure UK authors must pay
for Gold?

*3. Benefits of 6% CC-BY.* The UK produces 6% of worldwide research output.
What benefit is it to UK industry, or UK wealth creation, or UK research,
to pay (hybrid) publishers 6% extra in order to make the UK's own 6% of the
worldwide research output CC-BY Gold? Is it worth the extra research money,
or the loss of potential Green OA from the remaining 94% of the world,
because RCUK induces publishers to increase Green embargo lengths (and the
rest of the world cannot afford -- or does not wish -- to subsidize hybrid
publishers over and above what they are already paying them in
subscriptions, as the UK is planning to do)?

*4. Green Compliance Mechanisms.* There seem to be plans in the making for
verifying compliance with RCUK's paid Gold option. What are RCUK's plans
for verifying compliance with the Green OA option?


On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM, BISSET J. <james.bisset at durham.ac.uk>wrote:

>  Thanks Stevan and all,
>
>  Update to my email which has clarified my query.
>
>
> http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/09/28/rcuk-open-access-policy-when-to-go-green-and-when-to-go-gold/
>
>  Mark Thorley has followed up on comment to clarify guidance in blogpost
> above.
>
>  1) if both gold and green route available, up to author and hei to
> choose best option for them. Not required to choose gold (although
> publishers may still move to restrict green through lengthy embargo)
>
>  2) if no gold option, AUTHOR must ensure article is deposited in an
> appropriate repository.
>
>  Kind regards
>
>  James
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 28 Sep 2012, at 13:37, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>   The Finch report incorrectly stated that Green OA self-archiving has
> failed.
>
>  In reality, RCUK failed to create any deposit compliance verification
> mechanism.
>
>  The new RCUK OA Policy, in its anxiety to comply with BIS/Finch/Willets
> has again,
> instead of fixing ghe obvious problem with the existing mandate -- adding
> an Green
> deposit compliance mechanism -- has again focussed on compliance with the
> rush
> to pay for Gold:
>
>  If the UK wants 100% UK OA within two years, it need only add
> the following simple, cost-effective compliance verification mechanism<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html>
> :
>
>  (1) Deposit must be in the fundee's institutional repository<http://roar.eprints.org/>
> .
> (This makes each UK institution responsible for monitoring
> and verifying timely compliance.)
>
>  (2) All articles must be deposited immediately<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html> upon
> acceptance for publication.
> (Publisher embargoes apply only to the date on which the deposit is made
> OA.)
>
>  (3) Repository deposit must be designated the sole mechanism<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-Integrating-Institutional-and-Funder-Open-Access-Mandates-Belgian-Model.html>
>  for
> submitting publications for UK research assessment (REF<http://www.eprints.org/ref2014/>
> ).
>
>  (4) Provide authors with rich metrics on usage and citations,
> as a reward for deposit and as evidence of its benefits for
> usage and imact.
>
>  And settle for Gratis Green OA initially, rather than over-reaching
> for CC-BY: It's much less urgent, has far bigger publisher-opposition,
> and will come, by and by, once we have mandated global gratis Green OA.
>
>  Stevan Harnad
>
>   On 2012-09-28, at 7:49 AM, BISSET J. wrote:
>
>    Hi all,****
>
> At an event last night held at Imperial College (
> http://scicommforum.eventbrite.co.uk/ , great discussion about OA, RCUK
> policy, purpose of repositories etc.) I raised a question I had previously
> asked RCUK directly via email (see below) but had received no response.***
> *
>
> *Question:*
>
> (i) From the context of an institution with an open access mandate in
> place requiring self-archiving in the institutional repository, but which
> like many other institutions still has some work to achieve 100%
> compliance...****
>
> (ii) Taking into account the *explicit* requirement for deposit from, for
> example, Wellcome and some of the Research Councils...****
>
> Have myself and colleagues (a) misunderstood RCUK policy, (b) is the
> wording not as tight as it should be or (c) or is it as it is and that is
> what is intended when the policy seems to:-****
>
> 1) Require authors to publish in 'compliant' journals****
>
> 2) Indicate that to be compliant, journals must *allow* deposit in other
> repositories****
>
> but...****
>
> 3) there appears to be no explicit push (although implied) to actually *
> require* deposit, nor an indication of where this responsibility should
> lie to make the deposit or check that deposit has occurred.****
>
> *Response*
>
> This followed on from several questions about green OA, self-archiving,
> publisher archiving and repositories.****
>
> Mark Thorley's response included comment about RCUK "thinking about being
> more co-ordinated ... still a piece of work to be done ... watch this
> space" and later a Tweet from Alexandra Saxon, head of Comms at RCUK:****
>
> *"...When we announce details of the block grant we will clarify wording
> in policy / guidance #icoa"*
>
> Mike Taylor from Bristol also kindly did a quick check and came back with:
> ****
>
> *"#icoa Actually wording IS clear: RCUK "will accept a delay of no more
> than six months between on-line publication and a paper becoming OA"*****
>
> ... admitting it was 'by the skin of their teeth'. I thought "great" - we
> just must have really misread it.****
>
> *Still unclear*****
>
> But having now re-read the policy (again), I still don't think it is as
> clear as it could be *if* RCUK do expect deposit to be made (either
> following Gold or green route).****
>
> Now, there is a much wider discussion around this about usage licences,
> institutional vs subject repositories, green vs gold, whether publishers or
> authors should deposit, visbility of repository material and hybrid OA
> articles. That has been plenty discussed elsewhere, and still is, and needs
> to be.****
>
> But can I please clarify with anyone else if others take the same reading
> as we have from the policy as it stands:-****
>
> a) Section 3 clearly states the *requirements on researchers*, which
> include to publish in compliant journals. No mention of deposit required.*
> ***
>
> b) Section 4 then goes on to describe how a journal can be considered
> 'compliant'. Through either of the two options given, it states that "the
> journal must allow deposit".****
>
> As Mike Taylor points out, it also then goes on to say (under the second,
> green oa option)...****
>
> *"the journal must allow deposit of Accepted Manuscripts that include all
> changes resulting from peer review ... Research Councils will accept a
> delay of no more than six months between on-line publication and a research
> paper becoming Open Access, except in the case of research papers arising
> from research funded by the AHRC and the ESRC where the maximum embargo
> period is 12 months."*****
>
> But the way we have read this is that, *in order to be compliant* (it is
> in the section on how an author can identify if a journal is compliant, and
> follows on from the start of the sentence which says a journal must allow,
> not act upon) research councils will accept no delay longer than 6/12
> months when a journal will *allow* deposit.****
>
> We cannot see any clearly expressed requirement or allocation of
> responsibility either for:-****
>
> i) the journal to deposit in a specific subject respository, or****
>
> ii) the author to then act upon the journal deposit policy and
> self-archive, or****
>
> iii) the author to be responsible for ensuring deposit has occurred
> (either by self-archiving or publisher archiving).****
>
> I therefore think there is a risk that this aspect of the policy would be
> difficult to enforce as it is currently phrased.****
>
> I'd be very interested to hear others thoughts or readings on this. It is
> of course very picky, and I concur with Professor Stephen Curry in
> congratulating Mark Thorley and RCUK, but as a means of trying to make sure
> OA is pursued with vigour, the current phrasing appears to be not as tight
> as it could be.****
>
> Kind regards****
>
> James
>  James Bisset
>   Academic Liaison Librarian (Research Support)
>  Durham University Library
>  Stockton Road
>  Durham DH1 3LY
>
>  Twitter: @bissetjm
>  Tel: +44 (0)191 334 1586
>
>  -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* BISSET J.
> *Sent:* 26 July 2012 14:07
> *To:* 'info at rcuk.ac.uk'
> *Subject:* Open Access policy: Cllarification of our uinderstanding - no
> explicit requirement to deposit o authors or publishers.
>
>   Dear RCUK,
>
> Apologies, I was not sure which contact address might be preferable.
> Following a meeting with colleagues, we are concerned/confused by one
> aspect of the recent announcement on access to research outputs. Could we
> please ask for clarification of our understanding, and if in fact there
> might be an omission from the statement.
>
> Your statement stipulates that researchers in receipt of funding from
> Research Councils must be published in *journals which are compliant* with
> your policy on open access.
>
> The policy then indicates the two requirements for recognition as *the
> journal* being considered to be compliant:-
>
> The Research Councils will recognise a journal as being compliant with
> their policy on Open Access if:
>
>  1) The journal provides via its own website immediate and unrestricted
> access to the publisher’s final version of the paper (the Version of
> Record), and*allows* immediate deposit of the Version of Record in other
> repositories without restriction on re-use. This may involve payment of an
> ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC) to the publisher. The CC-BY license
> should be used in this case.
>
>  Or
>
> 2) Where a publisher does not offer option 1 above, the journal must *
> allow* deposit of Accepted Manuscripts that include all changes resulting
> from peer review (but not necessarily incorporating the publisher’s
> formatting) in other repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial
> re-use and within a defined period. In this option no ‘Article Processing
> Charge’ will be payable to the publisher. Research Councils will accept a
> delay of no more than six months between on-line publication and a research
> paper becoming Open Access, except in the case of research papers arising
> from research funded by the AHRC and the ESRC where the maximum embargo
> period is 12 months.
>
> Our confusion is this:-
>
> The policy seems to place an emphasis on publishers that they must *allow*
>  articles to be deposited in other repositories (either with or without a
> fee and embargo). However, there is no actual explicit direction for
> publishers or authors to actually *take action* to make that deposit.
> This section (4) of the policy stipulates the criteria which will lead to
> the Research Councils recognising *a journal *as being compliant.
>
> Whilst the embargo limitation does stipulate:-
>
> ”Research Councils will accept a delay of no more than six months between
> on-line publication and a research paper becoming Open Access, except in
> the case of research papers arising from research funded by the AHRC and
> the ESRC where the maximum embargo period is 12 months.”
>
> … we could see two potential issues:-
>
> 1) If published via option 1, gold open access is provided and green
> access permitted and expected, but not explicitly enforced on either the
> publisher or author.
>
> .. and more worryingly,
>
> 2) If published via option 2, the publisher may allow green after 6/12
> months, and RCUK may expect a journal to not prevent deposit within this
> time… but we cannot see any explicit wording to indicate where the
> responsibility lies to ensure deposit occurs. If this was to be used to
> block funding to a researcher as a penalty for not depositing, could an
> author argue that the requirement is only stated as an indication as to
> compliance by the journal, and *not a requirement for specific action by
> the author*?
>
> We would very much like to see RCUK’s statement used as a means to
> encourage 100% compliance with making research council funded research open
> access and deposit in appropriate repositories, but if we have not misread
> the policy, we are concerned that we will in fact still face the same
> difficulties in encouraging authors and/or publishers to actually take the
> actions required to deposit.
>
> Has this been deliberately, or mistakenly, omitted from the policy, or
> have we just missed this in our reading of the policy? Any clarification
> would be much appreciated?
>
> Kind regards
>
> James
>
>    James Bisset
>
> Academic Liaison Librarian (Research Support)
> Durham University Library
> Stockton Road
> Durham DH1 3LY
>
> Tel: +44 (0)191 334 1586
>
>   ****
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20120928/96490eb5/attachment-0001.html