[GOAL] Forwarding from Prof. Rentier, U Liège

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM, <brentier at ulg.ac.be> wrote

Can Mr. Graf tell us what is the exact mechanism of absolute OA he has set
> up for his own university (RWTH Aachen, I presume) and to what extent he
> has been successful ?
> I would be interested to find out whether it could be applied in Liege as
> well and improve our quest for openness.
>
>
> Le 30 mai 2014 à 21:10, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> *To count dark deposits for the mandate quote is nothing than cheating.*
>
>
> Cheating? The U Liège ORBi Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access mandate
> requires (1) depositing immediately upon publication and (2) making the
> deposit OA after the allowable embargo (usually one year) (if there is a
> publisher OA embargo at all).
>
>  Liège annual deposit rates are over 80%
> <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/> (for ISI-indxed output), about half
> of it immediate-OA and about half Button-mediated access till the end of
> the embargo. Most deposits are OA within a year.
>
> Do you suggest not counting compliance with (1), even though it is
> mandatory?
>
> And the relevant point of comparison is either *Delayed-Deposit mandates *or
> no mandate at all -- not some ideal that there is no practical way of
> reaching at this time.
>
> Even if not every author fulfills a Button request, Immediate-Deposit
> mandates provide exactly the same amount of Delayed OA as Delayed-Deposit
> mandates, plus all the Button-mediated access that authors provide.
>
> It might be more constructive to try counting the Button-mediated access
> that authors actually *do* provide, not just what they don't. It's all *extra
> access*, over and above that provided by Delayed OA mandates -- and, a
> fortiori, even further over and above that provided by no mandate at all.
>
> Most IRs (including all German) have no mandates...
>
>
> Yes, and that's precisely why the Immediate-Deposit mandate and the Button
> were designed: So that all institutions could at least mandate
> immediate-deposit with the Button, no matter how long an OA embargo they
> allowed.
>
> [re U Liège/ORBi] *Peer Reviewed with full text (incl. dark deposits):
>> 3147. I have manually counted the first 5 pages (32 dark deposits of 100)
>> and the last 5 (excluding the last page, 42 of 100). If ca. 37 % of the
>> deposits of peer reviewed full text documents in 2009 were dark deposits,
>> this would be 1164 eprints*.
>
>
> I will let Liège/ORBi representatives reply about the specifics of their
> mandates. The data we have are that over 80% of Liège's annual ISI-indexed
> output is deposited within 3 months of publication (some of it much
> earlier), about half of it as immediate OA and half as Button-Mediated
> Almost-OA. That's already incomparably better than Germany's non-mandates.
>
> My understanding was that embargoed Liège/ORBi deposits are automatically
> made OA after the embargo elapses. (That is how it is done at Southampton,
> for example.) If not, it is an easy implementation detail to fix.
>
> And concerning http://hdl.handle.net/2268/165664 which you asked about,
> the Recto has relied:
>
>
> “C’est un *rapport* de Dassargues, peut-être financé par une source
> privée (à vérifier). Dans ce cas, si le financeur de la recherche souhaite
> garder le rapport confidentiel, c'est son droit, mais l'auteur désire quand
> même le mentionner puisqu'il a fait le travail et que le résultat de
> celui-ci est évalué via ORBi... Il doit y avoir d'autres cas du même genre.”
>
>
> *Translation:* “This is a report [not a publication] by Dassargues,
> perhaps funded by a private source (remains to be verified). In that case,
> if the research funder wishes to keep the report confidential, that is his
> right, but the author nevertheless wishes to mention it because he did the
> work and the university evaluates research performance only via ORBi. There
> are no doubt other cases like that.”
>
>
> And again: It might be more constructive to try counting the
> Button-mediated access that authors actually *do* provide, not just what
> they don't. It's all extra access, over and above that provided by Delayed
> OA mandates -- and, a fortiori, even further over and above no mandate at
> all.
>
>
> And I must repeat, it's all well and good to be dissatisfied with
> Immediate-Deposit Mandates and the Button, but it might be more informative
> to respond to my challenge to describe a practical alternative and evidence
> that it provides at least as much access...
>
>
> *Stevan Harnad*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20140530/e38304fd/attachment-0001.html