[GOAL] Re: G8 Science Ministers endorse open access

[Tim Brody]

On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 16:15 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote:

[snip]
> In backing down on Gold (good), Finch/RCUK, nevertheless failed to
> provide any
> monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with Green (bad). It only
> monitors
> how Gold money is spent.
> 
> 
> Finch/RCUK also backed down on monitoring OA embargoes (which is bad,
> but
> not as bad as not monitoring and ensuring immediate deposit.)

By "Finch/RCUK" do you mean the current RCUK guidance, because section
3.14 of:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf

Is all about monitoring for gold *and green* (including embargoes)?

"measure the impact of Open Access across the landscape including use of
both immediate publishing (‘Gold’) and the use of repositories(‘Green’),
and"

"For articles which are not made immediately open access ... a statement
of the length of the embargo period [will be required]"

I spent last Friday at a workshop of UK EPrints users that was all about
how we're going to report open access compliance to RCUK.

-- 
All the best,
Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130617/326cb115/attachment.bin