[GOAL] Re: HEFCE post REF 2014 Consultation

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2013-10-09, at 1:33 PM, Morris Sloman <M.Sloman at IMPERIAL.AC.UK> wrote:

> People should actually read the text of the HEFCE consultation carefully 
> 
> 25. The funding bodies therefore propose to treat as ‘open access’ outputs which fulfil
> all of the following criteria:
>   *  accessible through a UK HEI repository, immediately upon either acceptance or  publication 
>      (to be decided, as outlined in paragraph 29), although the repository may provide access 
>       in a way that respects agreed embargo periods.

What's the problem? It has to be deposited immediately and made OA when the agreed embargo period elapses.

>      *   made available as the final peer-reviewed text, though not necessarily 
>            identical to the publisher’s edited and formatted version

Again, what's the problem? 

The author's final peer-reviewed draft has far fewer publisher copyright restrictions and embargo 
constraints than the publisher's version-of-record.

And it makes a world of a difference to would-be users who otherwise have no access at all. 
(You think they'd rather have nothing if they can't have the version of record?)

>       *    presented in a form allowing the reader to search for and re-use content (including by
> download and for text-mining), both manually and using automated tools, provided such re-use
> is subject to proper attribution under appropriate licensing.

Again, what's the problem? The mandate is suitably hedged as not forcing authors to violate 
licensing agreements.

(Hence it only pays lip-service to re-use, but that's ok: Once there is universal immediate-deposit, 
that will provide 60% immediate-OA and 40% Almost-OA (Button-mediate), which, in turn, 
will lead to the natural death of all embargoes and 100% Green Gratis OA, which in turn 
will lead to publishers downsizing and converting to Fair-Gold, paid for peer review alone, 
along with all re-use rights users need and authors wish to provide.)

> 26. It remains our intention that work which has been originally published in an ineligible
> form then retrospectively made available in time for the post-2014 REF submission date,
> should not be eligible, as the primary objective of this proposal is to stimulate immediate
> open-access publication. 

What that boils down to is nothing more nor less than that it is not enough to publish it: 
it also has to be deposited immediately (whether or not it is made OA immediately).

> The implications of this are: 
> 
>  The paper has to be ACCESSIBLE to the public via the HEI repository at a time
>  still to be defined by HEFCE

The allowable OA embargo length is to be decided by RCUK, not HEFCE.

And with immediate-deposit, the articles in the 60% or journals that don't embargo 
Green OA will be immediately accessible to the public as immediate-OA, and the 40% 
that are embargoed will be immediately accessible to the public as Button-mediated 
Almost OA (and OA after the allowable embargo elapses).

What are you arguing for? Requiring authors to ignore the embargo? Or for forbidding 
authors to publish in a journal with an embargo that exceed's RCUK's (eventual) embargo limits?

> If an academic is very busy and forgets to upload a copy of (accepted/published)
> paper at the correct time (to be defined by HEFCE), the paper cannot be made
> open access at a later time. 

Academics can forget to do all kinds of important things. They learn. Don't worry, 
the several-decade obsessive compliance with every nuance of RAE requirements 
will continue, but it will be simpler, cheaper and less time-consuming than in the 
past -- and it will help accelerate and generate OA.

> This means an outstanding paper in the very top journal which perhaps has
> 10,000 citations and has led to a £100M spin-out, cannot be submitted to
> post 2014 REF because the author was busy with a research proposal and
> forgot to upload the paper at the right time. 

This is sensationalist spin. You could have said the very same if the author 
had forgotten to submit this brilliant paper to RAE at all.

Please let's stay realistic instead of lapsing into far-fetched hype.

> This REF policy is introducing new paper selection criteria into REF and is
> why it is important to try to get your institution to say the whole policy should
> be stopped as it is not the right way to promote open access.   

No new paper selection criteria whatsoever. The criteria remain 100% quality 
based, as before.

What is new is the procedure for submission, and its timing. (Think about it.) 
Rather as if instead of submitting papers as hard copy we now had to submit 
them electronically. (No change in "selection criteria".) And as if instead of 
submitting them just the last year before REF, we had to update a running 
list of candidates throughout the REF cycle (which is what many people are 
already doing anyway.) (Again: No change in "selection criteria".) 

> The current tone of the consultation is " Most institutions agree with this policy
> and we are just consulting on some of the mechanisms" 

And I certainly hope that's true -- or, if there are recommendations, that they 
are based on sounder and more substantive reflection and understanding 
than the above ones.

Stevan Harnad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131009/1f390f9b/attachment.html