Full-text of Call attached as PDF.<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p align="center" style="margin-bottom:30.6pt;text-align:center"><br></p><p align="center" style="margin-bottom:30.6pt;text-align:center"><b>EXCERPTS:</b></p><p align="center" style="margin-bottom:30.6pt;text-align:center">
25
February 2013 </p><p align="center" style="margin-bottom:30.6pt;text-align:center">Email: <a href="mailto:openaccess@hefce.ac.uk" target="_blank">openaccess@hefce.ac.uk</a></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.35pt;margin-left:338.6pt">
</p>
<p style="margin-left:338.6pt"><a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk" target="_blank">www.hefce.ac.uk</a> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:21.0pt;line-height:15.0pt"><b>Open
access and submissions to the REF post-2014 </b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:4.5pt;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:15.0pt">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. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:37.5pt;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:15.0pt">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. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:17.85pt;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:15.0pt">Please send responses to <u><a href="mailto:openaccess@hefce.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style>openaccess@hefce.ac.uk</span></a></u>,
by <b>25 March 2013</b>. 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....</p>
<p>David Sweeney, Director (Research, Innovation and Skills) </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:55.75pt;margin-bottom:17.6pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:16.15pt"><b>Open
Access and Submissions to the Research Excellence Framework post-2014 </b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:15.0pt"><b>Introduction </b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:17.6pt;line-height:15.0pt">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
process<sup><span>1</span></sup>…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… </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.55pt;margin-left:18.0pt">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span>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. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.55pt;margin-left:18.0pt"><b>2.<span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></b>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. <b><i>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.</i> </b>[emphasis
added]…<b></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;line-height:15.0pt"><b>Funding body expectations for
open access in post-2014 REF </b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:21.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;line-height:15.0pt">11. We propose to treat as ‘open access’ publications those
which meet all of the following criteria: </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:36.6pt">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) </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:36.6pt">made available as the final peer
reviewed text, though not necessarily identical to the publisher’s edited and
formatted version; and </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:36.6pt">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)… </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:14.0pt;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:15.0pt">12. <b><i>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.</i></b> [Emphasis added]…</p>
<p align="center" style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:15.0pt"><b>The role of institutional repositories</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:18.55pt">13. <b><i>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.</i></b> [Emphasis added]…</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:18.55pt">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: </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:18.55pt">‘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.’ </p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt">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). </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.6pt;margin-left:18.0pt">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span>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. </p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt">2.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:30.6pt;line-height:15.0pt"><b>While
we expect that sufficient clarity and reassurance on embargoes and licences
will be achieved through the Research Council discussions, we welcome responses
</b></p>
<p><b>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. </b></p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><b>Summary of areas for advice </b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:13.65pt;margin-left:18.0pt">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span>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.
</p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt">2.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span><a href="mailto:openaccess@hefce.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none">Please send responses to openaccess@hefce.ac.uk </span></a>by
<b>25 March 2013</b></p>
<p><img width="505" height="614" align="right" hspace="9" alt="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.
"></p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>