[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: DOAJ announces new selection criteria

Mon Jun 17 14:35:52 BST 2013

Hi
To answer some of Heathers questions about SHERPA/RoMEO:

"SHERPA / RoMEO is UK-based and I am not seeing this initiative actively pursue journals outside of the interest sphere of the UK. "
>We aim to investigate all suggestions we receive from any country for inclusion, for instance, the most recent additions to RoMEO are from India, Indonesia and Bangladesh.
 However, this takes time and we currently have more suggestions than staff time. This is an issue that we are working on, where our funding allows. 

"Is SHERPA / RoMEO committed to including all of the world's journals, regardless of language? "
>Yes, we aim to include all languages,. There are however, practical issues especially with uncommon languages. 
We are also working with Partners in several countries to investigate journals from their countries. This helps us to overcome local language issues. A list of our current partners can be found here: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/contrib.php 
RoMEO is also available to use in English, Spanish, Portuguese and Hungarian, with DINI providing a German interface. If you are interested assisting in translating RoMEO or providing local policy information, please do get in touch via romeo at sherpa.ac.uk

"I'd like to see every journal listed in SHERPA / RoMEO, but am not convinced that a journal not listed there is not open access."  
>We are doing our best to list as many titles as we can, however I would agree with Heather that not being included in SHERPA/RoMEO does not mean the title is not open access. We may have just not been able to investigate it yet, or it may not have been suggested to us. Having said that, we believe that we cover all major OAJ Publishers. Again there can be practical issues with smaller publishers and uncommon languages.

Please not that there is a circular situation regarding DOAJ and RoMEO. RoMEO uses DOAJ as an authority for OAJs, that RoMEO does not list itself, and flags them accordingly. DOAJ has hither to been strong in listing OAJs from smaller publishers and uncommon languages and we hope it will continue to do so.

Jane H Smith, BSc, MSc, MCLIP
SHERPA Services Development Officer

RoMEO, JULIET & OpenDOAR

Centre for Research Communications
University of Nottingham

0115 9514341
________________________________________
From: Heather Morrison [hgmorris at sfu.ca]
Sent: 12 June 2013 21:34
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); SPARC Open Access Forum
Cc: Lars
Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: [GOAL]  DOAJ announces new selection criteria

More comments:

First, thanks very much to DOAJ for this work and for open sharing of
the work-in-progress for comments, and thanks also to PLoS and others
involved in the OA Spectrum - while I oppose the framework I do
appreciate everything that you've done for open access and the
sentiment behind the work, if not the work itself.

Whether a journal is listed in SHERPA / RoMEO is up to SHERPA / RoMEO,
not something that the journal has only control over. SHERPA / RoMEO
is UK-based and I am not seeing this initiative actively pursue
journals outside of the interest sphere of the UK. Is SHERPA / RoMEO
committed to including all of the world's journals, regardless of
language? I'd like to see every journal listed in SHERPA / RoMEO, but
am not convinced that a journal not listed there is not open access.
I'd suggest that this should be a desirable, not a requirement to be
considered open access.

On the editorial board question: does every journal really need to
have an editorial board? I can see where the transparency would help
to identify quality journals, but will our desire for an easy way to
identify quality journals end up defining how journals are created?
For example, a small journal could easily be run by a single editor,
without an editorial board per se.

Does it really matter if a journal publishes 5 articles per year - or
even whether the journal is still active? Once a journal ceases to
publish, if there are quality articles still available, why not
continue to make these available? A designation of active journals
would be useful to keep track of the numbers, but many libraries
include DOAJ lists in their collections and for this purpose it
doesn't matter if the journal is still active.

Machine readability may be desirable, but not to the same extent in
all fields, and may be a barrier for some journals and publishers.
Doesn't even PLoS include PDFs that are not machine-readable? I think
this should be a nice-to-have, to be encouraged, but not a requirement
for inclusion in DOAJ.

Author copyright retention is not necessarily an essential part of
open access. For example, at a recent conference researchers explained
that in their work with First Nations peoples, they are now granting
copyright to the First Nations. Employees under a work for hire
arrangement may not be able to claim copyright in their works. I think
it's a good idea to encourage journals to leave copyright with
authors, but not convinced that a journal that retains copyright in
its own name could not be considered open access.

In summary, I argue for a more inclusive perspective on open access,
and against stipulations for inclusion in DOAJ that may ultimately
work against OA.

Earlier today I said that I strongly oppose the Open Access Spectrum.
Here are some of my reasons:

1.      This document very much reflects the gold approach to open access.
For example, the two main illustrating sections on the web page are:
"PLoS journals using OAS Grid" and "Assess a Publication or Publishers
with the OAS grid".  This is not a neutral conceptual framework, but
rather one that reflects a particular approach to open access.

2.      If we accept the idea of a spectrum, be prepared for others to
develop their own spectra, whether implicit or explicit. For example,
recent developments in Canada suggest that there are many who think
that lengthy embargoes and national access can be equated with "open
access". This reflects an implicit spectrum.

3.   If we do accept the idea of a spectrum, I would argue that there
are other spectra of openness that we should consider. The real end of
the spectrum for closed access involves enclosure that goes beyond
when material would normally enter the public domain. A short embargo
is closer to open than a longer embargo. A scholar-centered approach
might prioritize the timing of sharing. For example, posting an idea
for research as soon as it occurs to you is a lot more open than
waiting to post the preprint.

best,

Heather Morrison
Freedom for scholarship in the internet age
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/12537

On 12-Jun-13, at 7:04 AM, Dom Mitchell wrote:

> The Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) is delighted to
> announce new selection criteria and *hereby announces that these new
> criteria are open for public comment until July 15th*.
>
>  The DOAJ-team has developed the criteria and our Advisory Board (http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTemplate&template=about&uiLanguage=en#board
> ) has provided input and comments.
>
>
> With the growth in the number of research funders, institutional
> open access policies and mandates, all stakeholders involved –
> researchers (as authors and readers), research managers, staff
> managing publication funds, librarians, universities and research
> funders - need a trusted and reliable information resource that
> identifies good quality open access journals and filters out
> disreputable publishers. Equally, the former have a vested interest
> in not being associated with the latter.
>
>
> We have tried to construct objective criteria that can facilitate
> compliance verification easily.
>
>  In order to be listed in the DOAJ, a journal must meet the
> following criteria:
>
> - Journal will be asked to provide basic information (title, ISSN,
> etc.), contact information, and information about journal policies
> - Journal is registered with SHERPA/RoMEO
> - Journal has an editorial board with clearly identifiable members
> (including affiliation information)
> - Journal publishes a minimum of five articles per year (does not
> apply for new journals)
> - Allows use and reuse at leastat the following levels (as specified
> in the Open Access Spectrum, http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/howopenisit/)
> :
> - Full text, metadata, and citations of articles can be crawled and
> accessed with permission (Machine Readability Level 4)
> - Provides free readership rights to all articles immediately upon
> publication (Reader Rights Level 1)
> - Reuse is subject to certain restrictions; no remixing (Reuse
> Rights Level 3)
> - Allow authors to retain copyright in their article with no
> restrictions (Copyrights Level 1)
> - Author can post the final, peer-reviewed manuscript version
> (postprint) to any repository or website (Author Posting Rights
> Level 2)
>
> You may review the complete list of criteria here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlFw8p9XB3C6dHE3ZC1Hd2FMMjAweE96czRQb3NDbnc&usp=sharing
>
>
> Future submissions for inclusion in to DOAJ must include the
> complete set of information provided by the publisher. This
> information will be publicly available in the Directory. The
> journals currently listed in the DOAJ will have to go through a re-
> evaluation process based on the new criteria. This work will take
> place over the next 12 months or so.
>
>
> *DOAJ Seal of Approval* At the same time we are launching the DOAJ
> Seal of Approval for Open Access Journals (in short: the DOAJ Seal)
> to encourage a high practice standard. These journals will be
> identified with the DOAJ Seal logo.
>
>
> In addition to the more general criteria, above, required for
> inclusion in the DOAJ, the following criteria must be met for a
> journal to receive the DOAJ Seal:
> - Provides machine readable copyright information to help search
> engines identify open works
> - Provides DOIs at the article level
> - Provides metadata to DOAJ at the article level
> - Has a digital archiving/preservation arrangement in place
> - Allows use and reuse at least at the following levels (as
> specified in the Open Access Spectrum, http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/howopenisit/)
> :
> + Allows a community standard API or other protocol to crawl or
> access full text, metadata, citations, and data (including
> supplementary data) for articles (Open Access Spectrum: Machine
> Readability Level 2)
> + Ensures generous reuse and remixing rights (Open Access Spectrum:
> Reuse Rights Level 1)
> + Allows authors to post any version of their article to any
> repository or website (Open Access Spectrum: Author Posting Rights
> Level 1)
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> We are confident that the new criteria will positively contribute to
> the transparency of open access. Since open access journals are a
> relatively new phenomenon, and one that is continuously changing, we
> will probably have to revise the criteria in a couple of years to
> keep them current and up to date.
>
>
> To avoid any misunderstanding, we are restating DOAJ’s scope here:
>
>
> The DOAJ has the ambition to continue to be the white list of open
> access journals that are global in scope in terms of geography,
> scientific discipline and language.
>
>
> In scope: Journals that provide immediate access to scholarly
> articles without reader payment, including back-files from those
> journals made freely available after transitioning to open access.
>
>
> Not in scope: Single articles from subscription based journals made
> freely available under an open access option (hybrid articles).
>
>  Articles from subscription based journals made freely available
> after an embargo period (so-called delayed open access – not a term
> in our dictionary).
>
>
> Your comments on the new criteria are much appreciated and will
> contribute toward their implementation. Comments must be received
> before 6pm CEST on Monday 15th July 2013 and should be sent to the
> DOAJ Community Manager Dominic Mitchell (dom at doaj.org).
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Lars Bjørnshauge
> Managing Director, DOAJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

--
--
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-oaforumThis message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.