[GOAL] Re: Open Access Mandates: Q&A with the NIH

[Stevan Harnad]

Richard Poynder has raised some interesting questions in "*Open Access
Mandates: Ensuring
Compliance*<http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/05/open-access-mandates-ensuring.html>".
Here are some suggestions as to why neither NIH nor the Wellcome Trust (WT)
has a compliance rate of 100% -- and what could be done to remedy that:


*1. How To Comply.* Both the NIH and WT mandates designate Gold OA
publishing as one of the means of fulfilling the mandate, instead of
uniformly designating fundee self-archiving as the sole means of compliance
(whether or not the fundee publishes in a Gold OA journal.


*2. Who Complies.* Funder mandates only apply to fundees: only fundees are
bound by them. Yet fulfillment can be done by either fundees or non-fundees
(publishers, especially in the case of WT), instead of uniformly
designating fundee self-archiving as the sole means of compliance.


*3. When To Comply.* The designated timing for compliance with both
mandates is not immediately upon publication -- instead of uniformly
designating fundee self-archiving immediately upon publication as the sole
means of compliance (even if the self-archived draft is not made
immediately OA). As noted, it is in publishers' interests to make
compliance as delayed as possible, and to leave it in their hands rather
than the fundees'.


*4. What Version To Deposit.* It contributes to the delay in compliance and
the ambiguity as to who is fulfilling the mandate (the fundee or the
publisher) if compliance can wait for the publisher's PDF instead of
uniformly designating fundee self-archiving of the refereed final draft
immediately upon publication as the sole means of compliance (even if the
self-archived draft is not made immediately OA and the publisher's PDF is
optionally deposited later).


*5. Where To Deposit.* Both NIH and WT grants stress direct deposit in
PubMed Central (PMC), instead of uniformly designating fundee
self-archiving of the refereed final draft in the fundee's own
institutional reposiitory immediately upon publication as the sole means of
compliance (even if the self-archived draft is not made immediately OA and
the publisher's PDF is optionally deposited later), thereby recruiting
fundees' institutions to monitor and ensure compliance with the fulfillment
conditions of the grant (as institutions are always very eager to do!).


*Institututional ID/OA Mandates Work.* None of these delays, ambiguities or
uncertainties applies to (effective) *institutional mandates* such as U.
Liege's model ID/OA (immediate-deposit/optional-access)
mandate<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-html>.
Not only can author self-archiving in the institutional repository be
designated by institutions as the sole means of submitting research for
institutional reporting and performance assessment (as Cameron Neylon
correctly points out), but institutions are in a position to monitor
deposits continuously, not just when a research project grant (which may
last for years) has elapsed.


*Mutual Potentiation Between Institutional and Funder Mandates.* In
addition, designating institutional repository self-archiving as the means
of compliance for both funder and institutional mandates motivates
institutions to adopt self-archiving mandates of their own, for all of
their research output, in all disciplines, not just NIH- or WT-funded
research. (Institutions are the universal providers of all published
research, funded and unfunded.) Funder mandates designating institutional
deposit make institutional and funder mandates convergent and mutually
reinforcing <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html>--
rather than divergent and competitive, as funder mandates requiring
direct institution-external deposit in PMC (instead of just automated
harvesting or export from institutional repositories) do.


*Effective Institutional Mandates Can Generate 100% OA Globally.* The Liege
model institutional ID/OA mandate really works. If funders and institutions
worldwide collaborate, 100% OA can be reached not just for NIH and WT
funded research but for all research.

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Richard Poynder <
ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:

> Why is the NIH proving more successful in achieving compliance with its
> open access policy than the Wellcome Trust (which currently has a
> compliance rate of 55%).****
>
> ** **
>
> - The initial NIH voluntary policy saw compliance rates of 19%.
>
> -The mandatory policy (introduced in April 2008) saw compliance grow to
> 49% by the end of 2008, 70% by the end of 2009 and currently stands at 75%.
>
> -In order to increase compliance the NIH has a) engaged in awareness
> programs; b) improved its ability to track papers resulting from NIH
> research awards; c) developed new systems to assist sponsored research
> offices at universities and medical research centres in tracking their
> compliance; d) improved the submission process for authors by i) co-opting
> publishers to deposit for authors and ii) introducing the NIH Manuscript
> Submission System <http://www.nihms.nih.gov/>.****
>
> ** **
>
> One noteworthy point is that, while the NIH clearly takes a close interest
> in compliance levels, it does not collect statistics on enforcement
> actions. With the growth in compliance now apparently levelling off at NIH,
> this would surely be useful information — and not just for NIH itself, but
> also for other funders like the Wellcome Trust and Research Councils UK  (
> RCUK <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/Pages/Home.aspx>), both of whom are currently
> looking to beef up<http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_7297/new-stronger-uk-research-councils-policy-on-open-access>their open access policies.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/open-access-mandates-ensuring.html**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120519/108ad6ca/attachment-0001.html