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

[Reckling, Falk, Dr.]

Stevan,  Andrew, 

a) an IR has to exit and that is often not the case. And if an IR exists it is often not used, mandate or not. Here some central disciplinary respositories are much more successfull as PMC/UKPMC.
b) We believe that OA is better supported by the Gold road and therefore a change of the business model is needed. That means costs should be covered by APCs or institutions or mixed models. 

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: Andrew A. Adams [aaa at meiji.ac.jp]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 14:11
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Reckling, Falk, Dr.
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Mandates: Q&A with the NIH

>
> 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.

Falk,

As the previous two UK administrations (Blair and Brown) found to their
(political and UK taxpayers financial) immense cost, large centralised
databases are very hard to develop, maintain and populate. If we consider the
UK's NHS IT systems we see that a decade of attempts to put in place a single
overall system has been precisely worse than useless. The main project
delivered nothing of significant value and impeded local efforts because
either they weren't started (why do something local when one is promised that
something national is on the way) or because they were done but tried to keep
up with the ever-moving chimera of the NPfIT.

Institutional repositories are the natural scope for university-based
research. The technology (eprint and dspace) is there, as is the
interoperability (SWORD et al). The relatively smaller number of
non-university researchers have options of the opendepot for non-affiliated
researchers or the option of implementing the same technology as universities
for other institutions (individually or as consortia). The side benefits to
running one's own repository in terms of efficiency of promoting the
institutions' research output, monitoring the output of staff (for promotion,
funder mandate compliance and other purposes) should more than outweigh the
costs of supporting a local repository, which are not large compared to the
other systems that most universities operate (student registration databases,
scientific computation services...).

The vast majority of papers produced by any government research-body-funded
research have at least one co-author at a research university or similar
academic institution.

The obvious move is to mandate local deposit, with compliance a requirement
on the institution and the individual researcher (primarily the PI) who can
be motivated by a requirement on future funding - as with the Liege model
internally, only papers deposited full-text in the repository under an ID/OA
setting can be considered as formal outputs and used to justify future
funding applications.

Central deposit can be automated using SWORD and a simple set of keywords
(UKPMC for anything that should be deposited in there, for example).

I find it strange that the simple logic of this escapes anyone considering
how to move forward with OA from the funder side. Fund IRs instead of
pre-emptive Gold/Hybrid fees and mandate local deposit (enforced by final
report and future funding applications only being allowed to refer to IR
deposited papers). Promote whatever central harvesting is useful for
particular fields (medical research) automatically by simple keyword match.


--
Professor Andrew A Adams                      aaa at meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/