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

[Reckling, Falk, Dr.]

We think thatthe most important action right now is the national as well international coordination: 

a) A lot of Austrian research institutions and universities have notyet established an OA policy, repositories or publication funds for OA publishing. Therefore, together with other institutions wecurrently try to organise an Austrian network which implements and coordinates such activities.

b) UKPMC is working hard to extend the consortium to evolve towards PMC Europe.

c) For ScienceEurope (the new umbrella organisation of all major European research funders and research performing agencies) OA is one of the key topics.Therefore, a working group is established which will formulate recommendations for common actions (standards for funding APCs, incentives for high-level OA journals, OA for research data, e.g.)

The OA movement was characterized by institutional or country based examples and experiments so far, which was in the sense of trial and error very important. But to accelerate the development and to reach the tipping point, we think it now needs more international cooperation and common standards.
 
Some more details can be also find here: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/free-research-needs-the-free-circulation-of-ideas.html

All the best,

Falk

__________________________________________________
Falk Reckling, PhD
Social Science and Humanities / Strategic Analysis / Open Access
Head of Units
Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
Sensengasse 1
A-1090 Vienna
email: falk.reckling at fwf.ac.at
Tel.: +43-1-5056740-8301
Mobil: + 43-699-19010147
Web: http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html

________________________________________
Von: goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org]" im Auftrag von "Richard Poynder [ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 09:46
An: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Mandates: Q&A with the NIH

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


_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal