[BOAI] Re: UK HEFCE Call for Comments: Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014

[Stevan Harnad]

Full-text of Call attached as PDF.


On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> *EXCERPTS:*
>
> 25 February 2013
>
> Email: openaccess at hefce.ac.uk
>
>  www.hefce.ac.uk
>
> *Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 *
>
> This letter notifies you of our intention to consult formally on the role
> of open-access publishing in the submission of outputs to the post-2014
> Research Excellence Framework (REF). We would like some early input to help
> shape this consultation which will take place later this year. The
> consultation has no bearing on the 2014 REF.
>
> The attached document sets out the developing intentions of the four UK
> higher education funding bodies. We invite you to comment and advise on a
> number of issues to inform the development of the consultation proposals.
>
> Please send responses to *openaccess at hefce.ac.uk*, by *25 March 2013*. We
> will consider all responses received by this deadline. We welcome responses
> from any person or organisation with an interest in these matters. Please
> make it clear in your response whether you are responding as an individual
> or on behalf of a group or organisation....
>
> David Sweeney, Director (Research, Innovation and Skills)
>
> *Open Access and Submissions to the Research Excellence Framework
> post-2014 *
>
> *Introduction *
>
> The four UK higher education funding bodies are committed to the principle
> that the wide dissemination of research is an integral part of any high
> quality research process1…The established policy of the four funding
> bodies, therefore, is that outputs from all research supported though our
> funding should be as widely and freely accessible as the available channels
> for dissemination permit…
>
> 1.    To support and encourage the further implementation of open access
> we intend to introduce a requirement that all outputs submitted to the
> post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise are published on an
> open-access basis, where this is reasonably achievable and where, given the
> medium in which the output is presented, the concept of ‘open access’
> applies.
>
> *2.    *We accept the Finch Report’s arguments that in the long term, the
> gold rather than green route may be the most sustainable way to deliver
> open access. We have made it clear that institutions can use our funds
> provided for research towards the costs of accessible forms of publication.
> The full costs and savings to institutions of the move to open access are,
> however, still unknown; it is our intention to work with others in building
> our knowledge in this area. *As the transition to full open access will
> occur over a period of time, we propose to accept material published via
> either gold or green routes as eligible, recognising that it is not
> appropriate to express any preference in the context of research assessment.
> *[emphasis added]…**
>
> *Funding body expectations for open access in post-2014 REF *
>
> 11. We propose to treat as ‘open access’ publications those which meet all
> of the following criteria:
>
> deposited in the author's own institutional repository (see paragraph 13)
> immediately upon publication, although the repository may provide access in
> a way that respects agreed embargos (see paragraph 15)
>
> made available as the final peer reviewed text, though not necessarily
> identical to the publisher’s edited and formatted version; and
>
> presented in a form allowing the reader to search for and re-use content
> (including by download and for text-mining) both manually and using
> automated tools, provided such re-use is subject to proper attribution
> under appropriate licensing (see paragraph 16)…
>
> 12. *We intend that work which has been originally published in an
> ineligible form then retrospectively made available in time for the
> post-2014 REF submission date should not be eligible, as the primary
> objective of this proposal is to stimulate immediate open-access
> publication.* [Emphasis added]…
>
> *The role of institutional repositories*
>
> 13. *As part of our commitment to increasing public access, we intend to
> require that outputs meeting the REF open access requirement (whether
> published by the gold or green route) shall be accessible through an
> institutional repository.* [Emphasis added]…
>
> This reflects our view of the significant role of institutional
> repositories in increasing sustainable and convenient public access to
> research. It is our intention to support the development and use of these
> repositories as far as possible. We envisage couching this requirement in
> the following terms:
>
> ‘All submitted outputs covered by our requirement for open access above,
> and other submitted outputs that are available electronically, shall be
> available through a repository of the submitting institution.’
>
> 14. This would mean in practice that each submitting institution would
> maintain a web facility through which all relevant outputs might be
> identified and accessed (including items available through a link to
> another website).
>
>
>
> 1.    Some publishers introduce embargo periods before work can be made
> available in an open-access form. Where embargoes apply we propose to
> determine eligible periods with regard to the practice of other major
> research funders at the time. Outputs will be eligible if they are still
> under an acceptable embargo at the REF submission date. The Research
> Councils are still developing their guidance on embargo periods in
> discussion with interested parties, including ourselves. We look forward to
> their decisions which, along with responses to this letter, will inform our
> final consultation proposals.
>
> 2.    We welcome the discussions which the Research Councils are having
> about licences with various parties. We recognise there are concerns,
> particularly in the arts and humanities community, about the potential
> dangers of licence abuse. Allowing re-use of materials is an important
> aspect of open-access publishing, and developing effective licences in
> terms that recognise the interests of all stakeholders will be an essential
> element in this.
>
>
>
> *While we expect that sufficient clarity and reassurance on embargoes and
> licences will be achieved through the Research Council discussions, we
> welcome responses *
>
> *We invite comment on whether respondents feel this is the appropriate
> approach or whether they feel that sufficient progress has in fact been
> made to implement a requirement for open data as well. We will consider any
> representations that such a requirement may reasonably now be developed but
> would also need advice on how this might be achieved. *
>
>
>
> *Summary of areas for advice *
>
> 1.    This template provides a summary of the areas on which we are
> seeking advice. You may use this template to respond with your advice if
> you would find it helpful.
>
> 2.    Please send responses to openaccess at hefce.ac.uk
> <openaccess at hefce.ac.uk>by *25 March 2013*
>
> [image: Text Box: We welcome advice on our expectations for open-access
> publications, as set out at paragraph 11. We welcome further advice on
> repository use and on techniques for institutional repositories to
> cross-refer to subject and other repositories. While we expect that
> sufficient clarity and reassurance on embargoes and licences will be
> achieved through the Research Council discussions, we welcome responses
> which address these issues. We welcome advice on the best approach to
> exceptions and on an appropriate notice period. Any cases made for
> exceptions should be underpinned by clear evidence. We seek comment on when
> it may be thought inappropriate to expect repository deposit of monograph
> text. Alternatively, given the percentage of submitted material which is in
> monograph form, we ask for advice on whether an expectation of a given
> percentage of compliance as described above (paragraph 18c) would eliminate
> the need for a special-case exception for monographs. We invite comment on
> whether respondents feel this is the appropriate approach or whether they
> feel that sufficient progress has in fact been made to implement a
> requirement for open data as well. We will consider any representations
> that such a requirement may reasonably now be developed but would also need
> advice on how this might be achieved.]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20130225/cee9319f/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EMBARGOED OA advice letter.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 107536 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20130225/cee9319f/attachment-0001.pdf