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

[Richard Poynder]

Is it possible to say in what way/direction FWF is currently thinking of
developing its OA policy in order to make it more sustainable?

Richard Poynder

>>

-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Reckling, Falk, Dr.
Sent: 19 May 2012 17:32

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

-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Reckling, Falk, Dr.
Sent: 19 May 2012 19:18

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,
Falk