On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Alma Swan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.swan@talk21.com" target="_blank">a.swan@talk21.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt">The UK’s Higher Education Funding Council for England has announced its consultation on Open Access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework. Details can be downloaded from <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201316/#d.en.82765" target="_blank">http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201316/#d.en.82765</a><br>
<br>
Responses should be made online by 1700 GMT on 30 October 2013.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Alma Swan<br>
SPARC Europe</font></span></span></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
<h2><span lang="EN-GB"><font>HARNAD Replies to HEFCE REF OA Policy Consultation
questions</font></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 1</span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree that the criteria for open access are
appropriate (subject to clarification on whether accessibility should follow
immediately on acceptance or on publication)?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><i><u><span lang="EN-GB">Yes.
</span></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">1.1 The HEFCE REF OA Policy should apply
to the refereed, accepted version of peer-reviewed research articles or
refereed conference articles. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">1.2 It should be deposited in the author’s
HEI repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">1.3 Access to the deposit should be
immediately Open Access where possible, or, where deemed necessary, it can be
made Closed Access if the publisher requires an OA embargo. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">1.4 The crucial thing is that the deposit
should be made <i>at time of acceptance,
time-stamped as such, with a copy of the acceptance letter to serve as the date
marker.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Comments:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">The proposal is excellent. And if adopted
and effectively implemented, it will serve as a model for OA policies
worldwide.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 2</span></h3>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree with the role outlined for
institutional repositories, subject to further work on technical feasibility?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><i><u><span lang="EN-GB">Yes.</span></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Fortunately, most UK HEI institutions already
have institutional repositories (IRs) that are already configured, or readily
configurable, to be compliant with HEFCE’s proposed policy for REF. They also
already have a date of deposit tag. The dated acceptance letter can be uploaded
as a supplementary document. The full text can be uploaded with access set as
either Open Access or Closed Access (during an embargo, in which case the
repositories also have a facilitated <i>eprint
request Button</i> that can tide over the usage needs of UK and worldwide researchers
for the deposited research during the allowable embargo).</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Many HEIs are already use their IRs for
submission to REF. The only change required by the HEFCE policy will be to
require the deposit to be made immediately upon acceptance, rather than in
batch, at the end of the year, or the end of the REF cycle. But this is the
crucial core of the policy (and what will also make it an effective compliance
mechanism for the RCUK Mandate as well).</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">The IR software is also easily configurable
so researchers can keep updating their REF choices as they publish further
articles, substituting a later one for an earlier one, if they judge it more
suitable for REF. What is brilliant about the HEFCE proposal is that it ensures
that all potentially suitable articles are deposited immediately, in order to
ensure that they are eligible, even if they might later be superseded by a more
suitable article.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Should the criteria require outputs to be
made accessible through institutional repositories at the point of acceptance
or the point of publication?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><i><span lang="EN-GB">Deposit should definitely
be required at point of acceptance rather than at point of publication</span></i><span lang="EN-GB">, for the following reasons:</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The point of acceptance has a
definite date, with the editor’s dated letter of acceptance serving as the time
marker.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">2.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The point of acceptance is also
the natural point in the author’s workflow to do the deposit, again marked by a
clear, unambiguous, dated event: the letter of acceptance for publication.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">3.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The date of publication is
extremely vague and uncertain for journals. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">4.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The author does not know, at point
of acceptance, when the article will be published.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">5.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The publication date of the
article often has no calendar date.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">6.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The publication date usually does
not correspond to the date at which an article actually appears: the article
may appear earlier than the publication date, but more often it appears later,
sometime very much later. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">7.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">The author often only finds out
the date of publication after the fact – sometimes long after the fact.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">8.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">All these possibilities are vague
and uncertain, and the span of uncertainty can be from several months to two
years or even more, which is even longer than most publishers’ OA embargo
length. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">9.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">Hence publication date is no basis
for reliably and systematically complying with a HEFCE immediate-deposit
requirement by the author, nor for monitoring and ensuring fulfilment by the
author’s HEI or by HEFCE.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">10.<span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB">A further advantage of the
acceptance date is that it is earlier, and hence allows more and earlier access
and usage of the funded research.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you have any
comments on these proposals?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">IR
deposit, at point of acceptance, is a simple, clear, natural, readily
implementable and verifiable procedure for the author, the HEI and HEFCE, as
well as an excellent compliance verification mechanism for the RCUK OA mandate.
It is also an optimal model for the rest of the research world to adopt
globally. With it, HEFCE will be performing a great service not only for UK and
worldwide access to UK research output, but also for UK access to the rest of
the world’s research output, with an exemplary policy, suited for use by all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 3</span></h3>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree that the proposed embargo
periods should apply by REF main panel, as outlined above?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><u><span lang="EN-GB">Yes.</span></u></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">The length of the embargo is far less
important than the requirement to deposit in the author’s institutional
repository, and to deposit immediately upon acceptance. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Embargoes should be as short as possible, but
they can, if desired, be allowed to vary by discipline. The IRs have the
facilitated <i>eprint request Button</i> to
help tide over the usage needs of UK and worldwide researchers for the
deposited research during the allowable embargo.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree with the proposed requirements
for appropriate licences?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">It is not clear from the documentation what
these license/re-use requirements will be. I strongly urge not get bogged down
in them. We are talking here about UK research output. Once it is deposited and
any embargo elapses, deposits will be OA and hence can be searched, linked,
downloaded, printed, stored and text-mined by individual researchers and
research groups. They will also be harvested and full-text inverted for Boolean
search by Google and other harvesters. <i>All
of this comes with the territory in making them Open Access, and does not
require any further license.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">What would require further license
permissions would be the right for databases to harvest, data-mine and
republish the texts. Do not get bogged down in this now, if it creates any
obstacles. We are only talking about UK research output: 6% of worldwide
research output. If the rest of the world adopts the HEFCE immediate-deposit
requirement too, OA will become 100% globally, and all re-use rights authors
wish to provide and users need will follow soon after. But it would be a
needless risk to let licensing requirements hold back adoption or compliance of
the HEFCE OA policy at this point. And there are discipline differences here
too, potentially even bigger ones than differences in embargo length.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Go easy on licensing: It will all come after
the HEFCE policy succeeds and is adopted worldwide. Don’t let licenses and
re-use rights become a sticking point even before the HEFCE mandate is adopted.
Access is infinitely more urgent than re-use/license needs; access needs are
universal across disciplines; re-use/license needs are not. And access is a
prerequisite for re-use rights, not vice versa. First things first.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you have any
comments on these proposals?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Be
flexible and pragmatic on licensing. Immediate IR deposit is the crucial thing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 4</span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree that
the criteria for open access should apply only to journal articles and conference
proceedings for the post-2014 REF?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><u><span lang="EN-GB">Yes.</span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Refereed
journal articles and refereed conference articles have from its inception been
the primary targets of the worldwide Open Access movement, because they are the
only form of research output that is, without exception, author giveaway
content, written only for research uptake and impact, not for royalty revenue.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">It is
for this reason that all authors of articles will readily comply with an OA
mandate: They all want their findings to be accessible to all their potential
users worldwide, not just to those at institutions that can afford subscription
access to the journal in which it happens to be published.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">For
researchers, loss of access to their work means loss of uptake, usage,
applications and impact for their work. And the progress and funding of their
research, as well as their careers, depend on the uptake, usage, applications
and impact of their work.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">Books</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-GB">.</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> But all
of this becomes much more complicated and exception-ridden when we move to
monographs and books. Some books may fall in the same motivational framework,
but many are written in hope of royalty income, so authors are not eager to
give them away free for all. Also the economics of book publication entail a
much bigger investment in each book by the publisher, who would likewise be
reluctant to make the investment if the book was made available as an online
give-away.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">But
there is a simple solution for books: <i>Don’t
require them to be deposited, just recommend it.</i> And authors have the
option of depositing books as Closed Access rather than Open Access, with no
limit on how long they can embargo OA. (Meanwhile, if they wish, they can
provide individual copies via the Button as and when they choose.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">Data</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-GB">.</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> Data
are complicated in another way. The problem is not potential royalties but <i>first-exploitation</i> rights. Researchers
are not just data-gatherers. They gather data because they want to do something
with it. To analyze and process it. They must be given a fair allotment of time
to do this. Otherwise, if they must make their data open to all immediately, so
anyone can analyze it, then they may as well not bother gathering it at all,
and simply wait to analyze the data that <i>others</i>
have taken the time and trouble to gather – and were then obliged to make open
immediately.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">The
moral is that if article embargo lengths and licensing needs vary from
discipline to discipline, then the fair length of the period of exclusive
first-exploitation rights for data varies even more, not just from discipline
to discipline, but from research project to research project.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">And
again the solution is to encourage (but not require) depositing the data and
making it open as soon as possible. But no fixed embargo lengths.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Comments:</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">A successful HEFCE immediate-deposit
policy for refereed journal and conference articles will be an enormous
positive contribution, and more than enough as a first step. All the rest
(re-use rights, the gradual disappearance of article OA embargoes, and the
extension of OA to other kinds of content) will follow as a natural matter of
course. It should not be allowed to complicate what is otherwise an extremely
timely and powerful means of making UK research articles OA.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 5</span></h3>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree that a notice period of two
years from the date of the policy announcement is appropriate to allow for the
publication cycle of journal articles and conference proceedings?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-GB"> <u>No.</u></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">I think two years is needlessly and
unjustifiably long.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">We are still now in the phase of REF 2014. As
soon as that ends, researchers and HEIs begin to prepare for REF 2020.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">There is no reason at all why
immediate-deposit upon acceptance for articles accepted for publication
starting 2014 should not begin in 2014 rather than in 2016, as a condition for
REF 2020 eligibility.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Not even those HEIs that don’t yet have IRs
should be exceptions: Their authors can start depositing at once in OpenDepot,
the UK back-up repository designed for that purpose.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Comments:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">That
said, there is no reason why HEFCE cannot show some flexibility in the first
two years, for inadvertent failures to comply immediately. But this potential
flexibility should not be publicized, for it will only encourage lax compliance
during the two designated years.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 6</span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you agree that
criteria for open access should apply only to those outputs listing a UK HEI in
the output’s ‘address’ field for the post-2014 REF?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><u><span lang="EN-GB">No.</span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Every UK
researcher who is submitting an article for REF should have to deposit it in their
IR immediately upon acceptance (except if they came to the institution after
the acceptance date).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Comments:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Better
to be as inclusive as possible and handle would-be exceptions on a case by case
basis rather than declare explicit exceptions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<h3><span lang="EN-GB">Question 7</span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Which approach to
allowing exceptions is preferable? </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">I
support <u>Option a</u><b>:</b> Full
compliance; exceptions considered on case by case basis, first by the HEI, and
if not resolved, by the REF panel.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><i><span lang="EN-GB">There will be no basis for objections by
publishers to immediate-deposit in Closed Access.</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"> The embargo length for Open Access is less
important (because of the Button) and will not (and should not) constrain
authors’ choice of journals).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">External
collaborators will certainly not object to Closed Access immediate-deposit, and
are very unlikely to object to OA either – and certainly not post-embargo OA.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Do you have any comments on these proposals?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Percentage compliance criteria would be a
very bad idea, and would virtually be inviting institutions not to strive for
100%. Case-by-case handling is an infinitely better way to exercise
flexibility.</span></p>
</div></div>