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

Sun May 20 14:23:28 BST 2012

Falk,

FWF seems mainly support OA in life science, which is rather easy, because the structures and the periodicals exist for a long time now, in this field.

If a policy is essentially aiming at filling a central repository with publications in life science, how is it possible to contaminate the other fields? 

An institutional repository which gives access to all publications in all fields is more able to succeed the goal of FWF "of accelerating the process " .

You should have a glance at the new OA policy of the university of Luxembourg. Please see : http://wwwfr.uni.lu/universite/actualites/a_la_une/university_of_luxembourg_participates_in_the_open_access_initiative

This university has decided to follow the example of the university of Liège which is "a trial without error".  The repository Orbi has less than 4 years and the University of Liège recently provided  78.803 references and 47.638 articles in full text.
The international cooperation  that FWF wishes is possible at the level  of EOS. Please see : http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/j_6/accueil

Hélène Bosc
Open Access to Scientific Communication
http://open-access.infodocs.eu/tiki-index.php

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Reckling, Falk, Dr." <Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at>
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:25 PM
Subject: [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.
> 
> 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]&quot; im Auftrag von &quot;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
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120520/1f59f634/attachment-0001.html 