[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable
Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca
Fri Jul 13 15:19:01 BST 2012
Thank you, Stevan, for this useful summary.
Now remains the question: how do we multiply mandates and how do we
implement them?
Peter has suggested a high-level meeting to create momentum. I support
the high-level meeting idea and provided some hypotheses about it that
are aimed at boosting the green road. Keith, a member of the board on
EOS, is on board.
Who else is on board?
Is EOS on board?
Action, please!
Jean-Claude
Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 09:21 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER:
>
>
> For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to
> and fro on GOAL is about:
>
>
> 1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed
> journal articles.
>
>
> 2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles
> + certain re-use rights (often CC-BY).
>
>
> 3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their
> peer-reviewed final drafts free for all online (either in the author's
> institutional repository or website or in an institution-external
> central repository)
>
>
> 4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that
> provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often
> at the cost of an author publication fee.
>
>
> 5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article
> output, though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle
> physics near 100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest).
>
>
> 6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is
> Gold. Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre.
>
>
> 7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher
> Green OA rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA
> mandates -- and only a tiny proportion of the world's institutions and
> funders mandate OA as yet have Green OA mandates at all.
>
>
> 8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require
> self-archiving only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving:
> 60% of journals endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for
> embargoes of varying in length from 6-12 months to 5 years or
> indefinitely.
>
>
> 9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA:
> Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) are the ones that require immediate
> deposit of all articles, but if the publisher has an OA embargo,
> access to the deposit can be set as "Closed Access" during the
> allowable embargo period (preferably no more than 6 months).
>
>
> 10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated
> email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for
> research purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with
> one click. (This is not OA but "Almost-OA".)
>
>
> 11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that
> 100% of papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research
> purposes, not just the 60% that have publisher endorsement.
>
>
> 12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of
> institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA
> plus 40% Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the
> power and utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to
> all researchers, as authors and users.
>
>
> There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should
> be designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for
> institutional performance review, and funders should mandate
> convergent institutional deposit rather than divergent
> institution-external deposit.)
>
>
> And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated
> by institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of
> Libre OA (CC-BY) and Gold OA.
>
>
> All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL
> postings are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA.
> Only mandates will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does
> not confer instant global OA.
>
>
> First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of
> the reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach.
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust
> <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop
> <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stevan may well be right that the repository
> of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620
> chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most
> deposits of articles published in
> peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are
> marked "restricted access" and not accessible
> to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out
> of scope. So if this is the best example of a
> successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust
> can be forgiven for getting the impression
> that compliance is essentially zero, in terms
> of Open Access.
>
>
>
> I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This
> says:
>
>
>
>
>
> Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and
> characterisation of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films
> obtained by sol-gel method [ handle:2268/127219 ]
>
>
> Document(s) requested:
> Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint
>
>
>
> The desired document is not currently available on open
> access. Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the
> author(s) through the form below. If your request is accepted
> you will receive by email a link allowing you access to the
> document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum.
>
> ...
>
>
>
> The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that
> the electronic copy can only be used for the strict purposes
> of illustration and teaching and academic and scientific
> research, as long as it is not for the purposes of financial
> gain, and that the source, including the author’s name is
> indicated.
>
>
>
> So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am
> not allowed the "Open Access" from Liege. If I represent a
> patient group I am not allowed this material. If I am in
> government making eveidence-based policy I am not allowed it.
> It is the pernicious model that only academics need and can
> have access to the results of scholarship.
>
> As I have said before University repositories seem to delight
> in the process of restricting access.
>
> No wonder that no-one will use this repo. All it seems to do
> is mail the author and I can do that anyway (presumably if the
> author leaves the uni then the email goes nowhere).
>
> In today's market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf
> instead. I am not condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more
> sympathetic to it than repos.
>
> But I have been told to shut up and I will. I'm slightly
> disappointed that no-one is prepared to consider the
> possibility we should do something different.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120713/07ddfc18/attachment.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list