[GOAL] DDD vs. CCC

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Danny Kingsley <Danny.Kingsley at anu.edu.au>
wrote:

one of the big problems for making available works that have been deposited
> to
> repositories is the complexity of the copyright compliance.
>

*DDD*: There is a fix for that: *Require full-text deposit of the final
draft immediately upon acceptance for publication and set access by default
as RA.*

(The rest can be decided case by case, and later, if so desired. But
immediate RA, now, for 100% of article output!)

*CCC: *Danny, DDD is completely immune to copyright compliance complexity
(CCC). Hence invoking CCC as grounds for *not* doing (at the very least)
DDD is simply a non-sequitur, and an (alas) extremely widespread and
wrong-headed pretext for continuing to obsess with CCC instead of
implementing DDD.

(I do not, by the way, think that the RA default option is necessary; I
think an OA default is much better. But compromises are needed to break the
colossal log-jam we are still in now, and the RA default is a compromise
worth making in order to set the immediate deposits reliably and
unstoppably in motion, at long last. Otherwise the default will continue to
be pre-emptive, gratuitous CCC paralysis, and the deposit rates will remain
a timid trickle.)

There are the rules imposed by publishers, and then the possibility that
> the institution or funder has a special 'arrangement¹ with publishers that
> then override the standard copyright position obtainable from their
> websites.


(1) The immediate-RA option is immune to all these rules (as just noted).

(2) Institutions and funders should not be making any " special
arrangements" with publishers about any of this. Let publishers embargo
whatever they wish to embargo. That's their business (literally).
Institutions' business should be to *mandate immediate deposit* -- and OA
as soon as possible.

(It was a monumental strategic error to get into any sort of negotiation
with publishers about institutional (or funder) OA policy. It is absolutely
none of publishers' business what institutions and funders choose to
mandate. If publishers want to try to combat author compliance with
institutional and funder OA mandates, their only weapon is OA embargoes,
and it is a weapon against their *authors*, not against institutions or
funders -- unless institutions and funders allow it to be, by negotiating
OA policy in any way with publishers -- or, worst of all, by relying on
publishers instead of on authors/fundees for *compliance*! Both funders and
institutions have foolishly allowed these lines to cross: funders, for (1)
expediency and out of (2) Gold fever; institutions out of (3) groundless
CCC phobia and (shamefully) a (4) crossing of lines between serial price
(Big Deal) negotiations and institutional OA policy, *which should be 100%
independent of one another*.)


> And sometimes publishers change their rules - like the length of
> embargo.


Irrelevant to immediate RA default (DDD).


> To add to this there is the confusion over whether the author is
> under a mandate - which affects the Elsevier situation.


 Irrelevant to immediate RA default (DDD).

Yes, Stevan - I
> know you argue that Elsevier¹s position is semantics, but nonetheless it
> adds to the muddiness of the waters here.
>

The muddiness is in the heads of the CCC obsessives. For the c;ear-headed:
DDD.

I wrote about this on 23 May last year: ³Walking in quicksand, keeping up
> with copyright agreements"
> http://aoasg.org.au/2013/05/23/walking-in-quicksand-keeping-up-with-copyrig
> ht-agreements/


Librarians can keep on walking in quicksand if that's what their
institutional IP pundits are forcing them to do, but meanwhile *authors
should be doing immediate full-text deposits for all their articles*, DDD,
with an RA default if (foolishly) desired.


> My conclusion then was:
> "These changing copyright arrangements mean that the process of making
> research openly accessible through a repository is becoming less and less
> able to be undertaken by individuals. By necessity, repository deposit is
> becoming solely the responsibility of the institution.²
>

One should always stand ready to revise one's conclusions in the face of
countervailing evidence or argument. Repeating one's conclusions  is not
evidence or a counter-argument: it is self-fulfiling prophecy.

*The only institutional responsibility for repository deposit is to make
sure that it gets done*, without exception, immediately upon acceptance, by
mandating it -- and monitoring it to ensure timely compliance.(Officially
designating immediate-deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting articles
for institutional performance review [Liege mode] -- or national research
exercise [HEFCE model] -- is the best way to motivate compliance.)

And, during any RA period, implement the copy-request Button!
http://j.mp/IDOAButton

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20140928/be882922/attachment.html