[GOAL] Re: HEFCE Consultation on limiting submission to future REF to Open Access papers

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:


> *GT: *You may have a point that the publication date - and more
> importantly, author awareness of it - could be too unpredictable for
> authors to depend on it for making a submission to the repository.


Yes.


> *GT:* [But] publication date is not too unpredictable for compliance
> verification, because otherwise it would be impossible to verify compliance
> with embargo restrictions.
>

No. Publication date is indeed too unpredictable for compliance
verification. Hence allowable embargo limits will be harder to date and
time and verify than immediate-deposit.

But your point is...?

*GT:* Furthermore, take the following quote from a Springer CTA:
>
> "*Furthermore, the author may only post his/her version provided
> acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link
> is inserted to the published article on Springer’s website*."
>
> So, an author could not post the article to the repository before it
> appears on Springer's website. So if Hefce did demand that deposit is made
> at the date of acceptance, then it would be impossible to comply with both
> Hefce and Springer CTA requirements.
>

Are you kidding, Graham? (These arguments sound as strained and far-fetched
as the OJ Simpson defence-team's arguments!)

*GT:* No publisher [in that 60%] has ever introduced an embargo where there
> wasn't one before.
>

Circular: The publishers that have introduced Finch-inspired embargoes
(Alma Swan has been keeping a running list) are -- by definition -- no
longer in that 60%!


> *GT:* No publisher would ever introduce or lengthen an embargo. No
> publisher has ever negotiated agreements with institutions that specify the
> conditions under which deposits are allowed. And so it is also impossible
> that a publisher could demand one of those conditions is that the "Button"
> is removed, or that they can audit all fulfillments of eprint requests via
> a repository.
>

Interesting (and very reassuring) assertions. But what on earth makes you
believe them?


> *GT:* "Less than one-in-three authors updated the metadata of their arXiv
>>> record with a full citation when the article was published."
>>>
>>
And your point is...? (Mine was about Arxiv authors updating to incorporate
changes in the refereed version, not trivia about whether, when and where
publication volume, date and pagination details are available or provided.)


> If the publisher's CTA conflicts with Hefce requirements, then you can
> either comply with one or the other, but not both.
>

The HEFCE requirement is immediate-deposit. If the Copyright Transfer
Agreement is that OA may be embargoed, then OA is embargoed. HEFCE does not
set an allowable embargo-length limit; it merely supports compliance with
whatever embargo-length RCUK allows (with an expressed preference for its
being as short as possible).


> *GT:* Finch/RCUK policy has fewer restrictions on journal choice than the
> proposed HEFCE/REF requirements [for immediate deposit upon acceptance].
> [1] Finch/RCUK permits Green OA at no cost
>
[2] Finch/RCUK permits the same embargo limits as HEFCE/REF
> [3] Finch/RCUK does not arbitrarily limit the window in which a Green
> deposit can be made
> [4] Finch/RCUK provides additional funding to generate more immediate OA,
> without taking it from the institution or author's pocket.
>

1. Same as HEFCE/REF (but Finch/RCUK prefers and focuses on Gold)

2. Same as HEFCE/REF (neither has a mechanism for verifying OA-setting
after elapse of allowable embargo)

3. Finch/RCUK has no Green compliance verification mechanism at all

4. Finch/RCUK's providing additional funding of Gold is not a "restriction"
one way or the other (except on the tax-payer's pocket) -- but (4a)
Finch/RCUK's preference to choose Gold over Green is a restriction on
authors' choice of journal; (4b) disallowing publishing in journals whose
OA embargoes exceed Finch/RCUK's allowable (but not compliance-verified)
limits further tightens the restriction on author choice; and (4c) when
required to choose Gold after the Finch/RCUK subsidy has been exhausted is
indeed a restriction a restriction on "institution or author's pocket."

HEFCE/REF has not yet decided whether to require deposit upon acceptance or
upon publication. But it is obvious (to all but the OJ Simpson Defence
Team!) that the restrictions of Finch/RCUK not only *vastly* outweigh those
of HEFCE/REF, but that some of them have perverse, negative effects.

More important, HEFCE/REF is the tried and tested mandate that will most
effectively, equitably and economically generate OA, by providing a clear,
simple mechanism for verifying timely compliance: deposit on the date of
acceptance: the only natural and determinate landmark in the author's
workflow -- and the earliest point at which providing access to refereed
research becomes possible, and necessary, for research progress.

*Stevan Harnad*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131009/2647c960/attachment.html