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

Reckling, Falk, Dr. Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at
Sat May 19 19:17:43 BST 2012

Just on UKPMC:
- a the moment around 50% is Green and around 50% is Gold or Hybrid Gold
- from the Gold papers 1/3 is real Gold and 2/3 is Hybrid Gold
- Stevan, as you might know, major publishers as Elsevier or Wiley do not allow Green at UKPMC

No, we have not too much money but our practise says:

(a) PMC/UKPMC is by far the most accepted repository in the Life Sciences
(b) Researchers are much more willing to deposit their papers in PMC/UKPMC as in institutional repositories (that's rather annoying for most of them).

We also see some benefits for funders by the hybrid mode:
- a central and highly accepted repository of peer-reviewed article
- very high visibility by PMC/UKPMC
- text and data mining options
- deposition by the publishers
- data quality (correct acknowledgements of funders, e.g.)

On the other side, we see that this funding model cannot sustainable in the long run. Therefore, we try our best to develop our policy further.

All the best,

Am 19.05.2012 um 19:41 schrieb "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum at gmail.com<mailto:amsciforum at gmail.com>>:

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at<mailto:Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at>> wrote:

The FWF (Austrian Science Fund) has been joined UKPMC in April 2010 and reached in November 2011 a  compliance rate of around 65%. One major reason seems to be that we are able to pay publication costs three years after the project is finished, see: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/peer-reviewed_publications.html

The FWF Open Access Mandate<http://roarmap.eprints.org/33/>, according to ROARMAP, is the following:

"FWF requires all project leaders and workers to make their publications freely available through open access media on the Internet. Exceptions to the open access requirement can only be made in cases where it is not possible for legal reasons. In such cases, the FWF requires grant recipients to provide justification to this effect in their final project reports… Free access to publications can either be ensured through direct publication in open access journals or by archiving electronic copies of previously published original articles in subject-specific or institutional repositories..."

Are you suggesting that it's compliance rate of 65% is all or mostly dues to FWF-funded research being published in Gold OA journals, at the cost of up to 3000 euros?

...the costs of journal articles should not exceed EUR 3,000.00. (upon consultation with the FWF, exceptions may be made in some cases)...

Are there really that many suitable Gold OA journals for FWF researchers to publish in instead of the established subscription journals? Or is this hybrid Gold OA (double-payment)?

And does FWF really have that much spare research money to spend on Gold OA fees instead of research, when subscriptions are still paying for publication and FWF researchers could provide immediate Green OA for over 60% (including most of the top journals in every discipline) at no added cost (and Almost-OA for the remaining 40%, during any OA embargo period)?

A statistical breakdown of the FWF 65% by Green, Gold, hybrid Gold, field and cost would be very informative for us all.

Stevan Harnad
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>

More information about the GOAL mailing list