[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8 Suggestions

Sun Feb 24 19:26:16 GMT 2013

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Rebecca Kennison <rrkennison at gmail.com>wrote:

[I] can say with certainty that what you suggest would be impossible for
> most institutions to accomplish on their own, even if they wanted to do so.
> A designated repository -- or several designated repositories -- that
> receive(s) official credentialing by an agency is the only truly effective
> approach.
>

I think you are mistaken, Rebecca (but partly because in some cases you may
have misunderstood what I was saying). Let's take it point for point:

1. The directive covers not only articles, but also the data used to
> support those publications.

Correct. But I am only talking about articles.

> The directive further talks about the importance of the content being
> available to be analyzed and reused by entrepreneurs for innovative
> technology development, implying the content must be in a machine-readable
> format.

Self-archived articles are machine-readable. (Google does full-text
inversion on them all the time.)

very few institutions individually have the financial wherewithal to
> provide the data curation and XML markup services that might be required by
> the agency.

Authors provide digital full-text. That fulfills the mandate.

Further XML mark-up is another matter. If central harvesters have the
wherewithal to do it, that's fine; they can harvest the full-texts and do
the mark-up.

Where would the extra resources come from to develop the services you
> suggest should be managed by the IR? Not from the agencies.

No extra resources needed. Just a policy that the only way to submit
articles for performance review is to deposit them in the IR. (And some
monitoring of *acceptance date* vs. *deposit date* to ensure prompt
deposit. Probably best administered at the departmental of faculty level,
not the library.

what happens with cross-institutional work? Who is responsible for deposit?
> Who is responsible for tracking compliance? Duplication of effort and of
> content is neither efficient nor effective.

Each co-author must deposit in own institution's IR. Redundancy is good,
and systematicity is even better.

2. The agencies have flexibility in determining the embargo period, but
> while an agency could mandate immediate deposit upon publication, how would
> anyone track that to ensure compliance?

The deposit date should be on the date of acceptance, not the date of
publication. The author has that date, and can and should make deposit part
of his standard work-flow. And, as noted above, the department and faculty
can and should request information from the author on acceptance date, to
ensure timely compliance.

the need to determine formats that are allowed to be deposited, to ensure
> (to fulfill this directive) that all supporting data files are also
> provided, and to work with the author to get all those pieces in place.

Let's just worry about getting the digital text deposited upon acceptance
first. That's already a world of difference from what's happening today,
unmandated, with sparsely sparsely IRs.

> Asking an IR manager to be responsible to ensure compliance for his or her
> institution would be hard enough; having to ensure that compliance is
> happening immediately would be impossible.

Certainly not impossible, but perhaps not a task for the IR manager.

3. There are all kinds of legal issues associated with this point of which
> I am sure you are well aware. While CC-BY or some such license would be
> optimal, unless the author insists on this from the beginning, he or she
> will not get this later on. Optimally the author would be requesting CC-BY
> now, and many are trying to do so, only to get shot down by their
> publishers. The author can request. Publishers right now do wield
> considerable power.

Correct. That's why immediate-deposit should be require whereas
immediate-OA (or CC-BY) should only be urged.

4. Such an approach depends on the braveness of each institution's general
> counsel. Harvard's stance is particularly brave. Other institutions with
> similar policies (such as MIT) have taken a more cautious approach. I'm
> sure the lawyers on this list can weigh in much better than I on the pros
> and cons of this approach.

Immediate deposit is required, but not a legal matter; immediate OA is
legal matter, but not required, only urged. (Even Harvard/MIT allow
waivers.)

5. How would those charged with compliance know when fulfillment of the
> mandate had occurred if there is no stated embargo?

To comply is to deposit immediately. (See above for monitoring and
verification.) The deposit must be made OA as soon as possible, (Mention a
maximum time limit if you like.)

6. I don't know what exactly this function [the email-eprint-request
> Button) is and so must assume it's specific to EPrints. Most existing IRs,
> at least here in the United States (which is the only place this directive
> has effect) are not EPrint repositories. I assume the functionality is
> designed to allow a researcher to be e-mailed the content of any given
> deposit.

The Button allows a user who reaches a Closed Access deposit (having seen
the open metadata) to click to request an eprint for research purposes. IR
sends an automatic email to the author, who can authorize the automatic
emailing of the eprint with one click. It is implemented in both EPrints
and DSpace:

http://www.eprints.org/news/features/request_button.php
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy

In the US there are 63 Eprints IRs and 142 Dspace IRs.

Does it allow for bulk download for analysis as well? What about all the
> associated data sets? An e-mail function would, I think, be inadequate to
> meet the requirements of the directive for access and analysis.

No. But the Button is not OA. It's meant to tide over user needs during any
OA embargo.

7. I would imagine this [i.e. "Designate repository deposit as the sole
mechanism for submitting publications for performance review, research
assessment, grant application, or grant renewal"] is the intent of the
directive's requirement that "an agency [have a] strategy for measuring
and, as necessary, enforcing compliance with its plan."

I hope so!

8. Much, much easier said than done ["Implement rich usage and citation
> metrics in the institutional repositories as incentive for compliance"],
> I can say as someone who's group actually does tons of work in this area.
> Again, this is work much better left to those services for which this is
> their core mission, rather than something to require from each
> institutional repository.

Some of the metrics and statistics can be generated at IR level, others at
harvester level. IRs can import harvester metrics and statistics.

Stevan Harnad

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:

> The new US OATP Presidential Directive<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf> requiring
> the largest US funding agencies to mandate OA within 12 months of
> publication is a wonderful step forward for the entire planet.
>
> Here are some crucial implementational details that will maximize the
> mandates' effectiveness.
>
> (1) Specify that the deposit of each article must be in an *institutional
> repository* (so the universities and research institutions can monitor
> and ensure compliance as well as adopt mandates of their own).
>
> (2) Specify that the deposit must be done *immediately upon publication*.
>
> (3) Urge (but do not require) authors to make the immediate-deposit
> immediately-OA.
>
> (4) Urge (but do not require) authors to reserve the right to make their
> papers immediately-OA (and other re-use rights) in their contracts with
> their publishers (as in the Harvard-style mandates).
>
> (5) Shorten, or, better, do not mention allowable OA embargoes at all (so
> as not to encourage publishers to adopt them).
>
> (6) Implement the repositories' automated "email eprint request" Button
> (for embargoed [non-OA] deposits).
>
> (7) Designate repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting
> publications for performance review, research assessment, grant
> application, or grant renewal.
>
> (8) Implement rich usage and citation metrics in the institutional
> repositories as incentive for compliance.
>
> If this is all done universally, universal OA will soon be upon us -- and
> a global transition to affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold OA (instead of
> today's premature, double-paid Fool's-Gold), plus as much CC-BY as users
> need and authors wish to provide -- will not be far behind.
>
>  --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sparc-oaforum at arl.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130224/f91149bd/attachment-0001.html 