[GOAL] Re: Monitoring Open Access Mandate Compliance

[Stevan Harnad]

*From:* Repositories discussion list  *On Behalf Of *Lawson, Gerald J.
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 5:40 AM*
> Subject:* Monitoring Open Access Publications****
>
> ** **
>
> Colleagues - some of you will have noticed that the UK Government's "Innovation
> and Research Strategy for Growth<http://www.bis.gov.uk/innovatingforgrowth>",
> published last week, contained the following paragraph...****
>
>  ****
>
> *6.9     **�** The Research Councils expect the researchers they fund to
> deposit published articles or conference proceedings in an open access
> repository at or around the time of publication. But this practice is
> unevenly enforced. Therefore, as an immediate step, we have asked the
> Research Councils to ensure the researchers they fund fulfil the current
> requirements..*****
>
>  ****
>
> 1. It is possible to get information (e.g. through WoS/Eval/ROD/ROS) on
> publications attributed to RC grants,  but during the embargo period it is
> difficult to tell whether pre-prints or post-prints for these publications
> have indeed been deposited in a UK Repository.  Does anyone know how
> consistently the *dc*.*rights*.*embargodate *is implemented by the major
> UK repository systems?   Could this field be output by an aggregation
> service provided with a list of relevant DOIs ? ****
>
>  ****
>
> 2. Does anyone know whether publishers are making a flag available to show
> which papers in Hybrid Journals are available Open Access - at present
> there seems to be no way of finding this out apart from trying to download
> them from a PC with no subscription permissions?****
>
>  ****
>
> Any ideas welcome?
>

It is a great strategic mistake to allow and to rely on *publishers* to be
to ones to ensure compliance with the funding councils requirements for its
*fundees*.

The way to ensure compliance is through fundees' institutions, who are
already very much involved in ensuring that their researchers fulfill all
other funder requirements.

This also has the advantage of encouraging the institutions -- which are
the universal providers of *all* peer-reviewed research, both funded and
funded -- to adopt complementary Open Access mandates of their own:

*How to Integrate University and Funder Open Access
Mandates<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html>
:*

*SUMMARY: **Research funder open-access mandates (such as
NIH<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=National%20Institutes%20of%20Health%20%28NIH%29>'s
and RCUK <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx>'s) and
university open-access mandates (such as
Harvard<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20of%20Arts%20and%20Sciences>'s
and U. Liege<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/853-guid.html>'s)
are complementary. There is a simple way to integrate funder mandates and
university mandates to make them synergistic and mutually reinforcing:*

*      Universities' own Institutional Repositories
(IRs)<http://roar.eprints.org/> are
the natural locus for the direct deposit of their own research output:
Universities (and research institutions) are the universal research
providers of all research (funded and unfunded, in all fields) and have a
direct interest in archiving, monitoring, measuring, evaluating, and
showcasing their own research assets -- as well as in maximizing their
uptake, usage and impact <http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html>.*

*      Universities (and research institutions) also have a direct interest
in ensuring that their researchers fulfill their funders' conditions for
awarding grants.*

*      Both universities and funders should accordingly
mandate<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/> deposit
of all peer-reviewed final drafts (postprints), in each author's own
university IR, immediately upon acceptance for
publication<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html>,
for both institutional and funder monitoring and record-keeping purposes.
Access to that immediate postprint deposit in the author's university IR
may be set immediately as Open Access if copyright
conditions<http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php> allow;
otherwise access can be set as Closed
Access<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html>,
pending copyright negotiations or
embargoes<http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/nih/copyright.html>.
All the rest of the conditions described by
universities<http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~secfas/February_2008_Agenda.pdf>
 and funders <http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm> should accordingly
apply only to the timing and copyright conditions for setting open access
to those deposits, not to the depositing itself, its locus or its timing.*
*      As a result, (1) there will be a common deposit locus for all
research output worldwide; (2) university mandates will reinforce and
monitor compliance with funder mandates; (3) funder mandates will reinforce
university mandates; (4) legal details concerning open-access provision,
copyright and embargoes<http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/nih/copyright.html>
will
be applied independently of deposit itself, on a case by case basis,
according to the conditions of each mandate; (5)
opt-outs<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html>
will
apply only to copyright negotiations, not to deposit itself, nor its
timing; and (6) any central OA repositories can then
harvest<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/341-guid.html>
the
postprints from the authors' IRs under the agreed conditions at the agreed
time, if they wish.*

> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Gerry Lawson****
>
>  ****
>
> NERC Research Information Systems****
>
> Polaris House SN2 1EU, Swindon****
>
> gela at nerc.ac.uk 01793 444417****
>
> Skype: gerry.lawson2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20111219/1c594482/attachment.html