[EP-tech] Re: The Importance of Repository EC- (OpenAire) and RCUK-Compliance Tags for Mandate Compliance Verification
amsciforum at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 18:26:48 GMT 2012
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Donohue <tdonohue at duraspace.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Dspace-general] The Importance of Repository EC- (OpenAire)
and RCUK-Compliance Tags for Mandate Compliance Verification
Hi DSpace Users,
I just wanted to follow up to this request to let everyone know that, as of
DSpace 3.0 (coming in late November / early December), DSpace has a
completely rewritten OAI-PMH interface which is now compliant with both
OpenAIRE (http://www.openaire.eu/) and DRIVER (http://www.driver-support.eu/
This new feature for DSpace 3.0 was provided by Lyncode (
http://www.lyncode.com) and our latest DSpace Committer, João Melo.
More information on this brand new OAI-PMH interface (nicknamed "OAI 2.0")
can be found in the DSpace 3.0 documentation at:
If any DSpace Users would like to try out this new, or help us test the new
OAI-PMH interface in general, we are holding a second testathon this week.
You can test things on our demo server: http://demo.dspace.org/
You can download DSpace 3.0 Release Candidate #3 and install it locally to
More info on Testathon is at: https://wiki.duraspace.org/**
On 11/4/2012 12:32 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> /**Cross-Posted **/
> It is extremely important for the success of both funder and
> institutional OA mandates worldwide that eprints, dspace and all other
> repositories be made compliant with funder harvesting requirements such
> as those of OpenAIRE <http://www.openaire.eu> (as Eloy Rodrigues
> indicates in the passage appended after this message).
> For deposit mandates to work, they need to have /a reliable and
> date-stamped compliance verification mechanism/.
> */Plea to repository managers and software developers //world-wide/: *
> This is the time to make sure that your repositories implement the
> requisite metadata tags for specifying the funding agency (US, EU or
> RCUK) as well as the article's journal acceptance date).
> A system must be designed for ensuring that the mandate will actually be
> complied with, which means that there has to be an effective, timely
> monitoring mechanism, with swift feedback and consequences in case of
> That means that immediate-deposit of full-text upon acceptance for
> publication has to be monitored continuously, based on authors' ongoing
> publication calendar dates not just retrospectively in 4-6-year batches.
> If compliance is instead left to the the latter -- long-delayed
> retrospective batches -- then even the talk about a "6-12-month embargo"
> becomes meaningless! Embargos can only be observed if publication dates
> are observed, and hence if deposits, whether embargoed or unembargoed,
> are immediate. That's how deposit-date needs to be integrated into RCUK
> authors' annual work-flow, including the all-important date-stamping by
> the official date of the journal's letter of acceptance -- not the
> wildly varying and incalculable date on which the journal issue actually
> appears -- which is in turn often far from the calendar date of
> publication: as much as a year or more at times.)
> The EC's and RCUK's mandates have to be integrated with institutional
> mandates so as to implement the following 8 shared conditions:
> (1) *immediate-deposit* (even if access to the deposit is allowed to
> be embargoed):
> (2) of the *final peer-reviewed draft*
> (3) on the *date of acceptance* by the journal (which is marked by a
> verifiable calendar date-stamp)
> (4) and the immediate-deposit must be directly in the *author's own
> institutional repository* (not institution-externally -- central
> repositories can harvest from IRs)
> (5) so that immediate-deposit can be *monitored and verified by the
> author's institution* (regardless of whether the mandate is from a
> funder or the institution)
> (6) as a *funding compliance condition* and/or an *institutional
> employment condition*
> (7) and institutional repository must be designated as the *sole
> locus of deposit * for submitting publications for institutional
> performance evaluation, funder conditions and national research
> (8) Repository deposits must be monitored so as to generate *rich
> and visible metrics of usage and citation* so as to verify and
> reward authors' deposits as well as to showcase and archive the
> institution's and funder's research output and impact.
> An instance of mututally reinforcing funder and institutional policies
> is the FRS-FNRS
> policy in
> Best wishes,
> Stevan Harnad
> *On 2012-11-04, at 12:39 PM, "Eloy Rodrigues" [OpenAire] wrote:*
> Hi Stevan,
> I agree with the recommendations for compliance-verification for RCUK
> that I've seen in another message.
> Regarding OpenAIRE we tried that our infrastructure helps/cooperate
> (and not
> compete) with the network of institutional repositories. We tried to
> very "low barrier" guidelines for compliance (we are now calling
> compatibility), basically just requiring identification of the EC
> and access status (Open Access, embargoed, closed) in a "standard" way.
> EC funded publications will be regularly harvested from
> repositories. So, authors from institutions with compliant
> just need to deposit on their repository to comply to the EC policy.
> even if an author goes to the OpenAIRE portal to deposit a
> publication, he
> will be re-directed to the repository of it's own institution.
> But unfortunately the number of compliant repositories is still not
> enough (except on some southern countries like Portugal and Spain),
> and is
> particularly low in the UK...
> Serviços de Documentação
> Eloy Rodrigues
> Campus de Gualtar, 4710 - 057 Braga - Portugal
> Telefone +351 253 604 156/7/8; Fax +351 253 604 159
> Campus de Azurém, 4800 058 Guimarães
> Telefone +351 253 510 168; Fax +351 253 510 117
> http://www.sdum.uminho.pt | Siga-nos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Eprints-tech