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

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <
Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at> wrote:

> 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
>

Falk, I know that very well.

But all UKPMC need do is harvest the metadata from the Institutional
Repository, if the article is deposited in the Institutional Repository.

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
>

Is what is needed in Life Sciences (and all fields) Open Access (free
online access) or an "accepted repository"?

Besides, as I said, institution-external repositories can harvest the
metadata and links once an article is OA in an institutional repository.


> (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).
>

Falk, can you tell me how/why depositing in their IR is annoying when
depositing in PMC/UKPMC is not: it's the same number of keystrokes, and OA
either way.

What's true, though is that some biomed funders have mandated OA, but most
institutions have not: But that's the point. Funder and institutional
mandates need to be made convergent and collaborative, rather than
divergent and competitive.

And institutions are the providers of *all* research, in all disciplines,
funded and unfunded.

We also see some benefits for funders by the hybrid mode:
>

You mean hybrid Gold? (And you mean despite the high cost?)


> - a central and highly accepted repository of peer-reviewed article
>

As noted above, institution-external repositories can harvest the metadata
and links (just as google does) once a paper is OA in an institutional
repository.

So it is not either/or. That is a false opposition. And there are enormous
benefits form making authors' institutions the uniform locus of direct
deposit.

- very high visibility by PMC/UKPMC
>

As noted above, institution-external repositories can harvest the metadata
and links (just as google does) once a paper is OA in an institutional
repository.


> - text and data mining options
>

Same as above.


> - deposition by the publishers
>

That is not a plus but a huge minus!

Not only is Gold OA and hybrid OA very costly per aper, whereas Green OA
costs next to nothing per paper. Not only is publication already paid for
in full by subscription costs. But publishers are not bound by funder
mandates: *fundees* are. On the contrary, it is in publishers interests to
constrain, restrain, delay and deter OA for as long as possible.

I must say that this is extremely short-sighted thinking on the part of FWF!

- data quality (correct acknowledgements of funders, e.g.)
>

Metadata can not only be harvested from Institutional Repositories, but
they can be enriched: Is that what you instead want to pay 3000 euros per
article for?


> 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.
>

In the long run, universally mandated Green OA will induce a natural
transition to sustainable Gold OA.

But this premature, pre-emptive hybrid Gold OA is not only needlessly
expensive (hence unsustainable) but also cannot and will not produce
anywhere near 100% OA.

I strongly FWF to read

*How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate
Institutional Mandates<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-How-to-Maximize-Compliance-With-Funder-OA-Mandates-Potentiate-Institutional-Mandates.html>
*

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html


and


*Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Harnad Response to US
OSTP RFI)<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-Public-Access-to-Federally-Funded-Research-Harnad-Response-to-US-OSTP-RFI-Part-1-of-2.html>
*

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html


and to rethink and optimize the implementation of the FWF OA mandate, in
the interest OA.


Inform your fundees of what I have drawn to your attention. Perhaps then
they will no longer find institutional deposit "annoying"...


Best wishes,


Stevan


> 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:
>
> http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html
> "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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120519/1b60b3a5/attachment-0001.html