[GOAL] Re: PURE nonsense

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Lucie Burgess <
lucie.burgess at bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote:


> I think it’s worth noting that HEFCE has in fact changed its policy to
> ‘the published version’ rather than the author accepted manuscript for open
> access articles published under the ‘gold’ route, hence delaying open
> access to the article until it is published. See:
> http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/Year/2015/CL,202015/ and scroll to the
> heading ‘gold open access outputs’.
>

More's the pity. But the lost OA time is the author's, since the Gold OA
articles have no OA embargo. Nothing changes for articles published in
subscription journals.

(But it's still a waste of money to pay for pre-Green Fool's Gold -- and
now a waste of time too.)


> And PURE is not the only CRIS system being adopted by UK universities to
> help them manage the administrative burden of the REF or reporting and
> statistics required by many funders to support compliance.
>

The problem is not the CRIS (which is just a record-keeping system,
completely compatible with immediate institutional full-text deposit in the
institutional repository); the problem is *outsourcing the CRIS function to
publishers.*

In-house CRIS's are an excellent complement to institutional repositories.

Stevan Harnad
University of Southampton


> Lucie Burgess
> Associate Director for Digital Libraries
> Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
> Clarendon Building, Broad Street, Oxford
> Senior Research Fellow, Hertford College
> Tel: +44 (0)1865 277104
> +44 (0)7725 842619
> Twitter @LucieCBurgess
> LinkedIn LucieCBurgess
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6601-7196
> Get ready for the REF – Act on Acceptance
> <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/home-2/act-on-acceptance/>
>
>
>
>
> From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org
> >
> Date: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 16:09
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
> Subject: [GOAL] PURE nonsense
>
>
> PURE is a Trojan Horse from Elsevier
> <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure> that (some) UK institutions
> have allowed to enter their portals. It is a trick, by Elsevier, to
> insinuate themselves into and retain control of everything they can:
> access, timing of access, fulfillment of mandates, research assessment,
> everything. The ploy was to sneak in via CRIS’s, which are systems for
> institutions wishing to manage and monitor their metadata on all their
> functions.
>
> Notice that the following passage from KCL's OA Policy
> <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/governancezone/Assets/InformationPolicies/Open%20Access%20Policy.pdf>
> makes no mention of timing:
>
> In internal evaluation procedures it will be expected that all
>> publications considered as part of appraisal or promotional assessments,
>> will have a metadata record in the Research Information System, Pure, with
>> either the full text article attached and downloadable from the Research
>> Portal, or a link to the Open Access article on the journal’s web site.
>
>
> What Pure is in reality designed to do is to make sure that *the full
> text is not openly accessible until after the publisher embargo on Open
> Access*.
>
> In point of fact, the battle for OA has long shifted to the arena of
> timing: The 1-year (or longer) embargo is the one to beat. Access after the
> embargo elapses is a foregone conclusion (publishers have already
> implicitly conceded on it, without overtly saying so). But *access
> embargoed for 12 months is not OA*. Publishers want to make sure (1)
> there is no OA before the embargo elapses, (2) the embargo is as long as
> possible, and even after the embargo, (3) access should be via the
> publisher website, or at least controlled in some way by the publisher.
>
> That’s exactly what PURE + CRIS does.
>
> And (some) UK institutions (under pressure from Finch’s fatal foolishness
> — likewise originating from the publisher lobby) have been persuaded that
> PURE will not only provide all the OA they want, but will take a lot of
> other asset-management tasks off their shoulders.
>
> It’s a huge scam, masquerading as OA, and its only real function is to
> strengthen the perverse status quo — of ceding the control of university
> research access to publishers — even more than they had before.
>
> It won’t succeed, of course, because HEFCE/REF2020 has nailed down the
> timing of full-text deposit as having to be made within 3 months of
> acceptance (not publication) for eligibility for REF2020, which a metadata
> promissory note from Elsevier will not fullfill. My hope is that
> universities will be as anxious as they have been for 30 years now not to
> risk REF ineligibility by failing to comply with this very specific
> requirement.
>
> (And the institution’s copy-request Button
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1110-Importance-of-Request-Copy-Button-in-Implementing-HEFCEREF-Immediate-Deposit-Policy.html> will
> take care of the rest, as long as all full-texts are deposited within
> Acceptance + 3.)
>
> (I think it was a mistake on HEFCE/REF’s part to state formally that there
> is no need to archive the dated acceptance letter that defines the
> acceptance date, but again I trust in the anxiety of universities to comply
> with REF2020 eligibility requirements to draw the rational conclusion that
> is indeed within 3 months of acceptance that deposit must be done for
> eligibility, and not 12 months after publication.)
>
> As you will see from the ROARMAP data below, KCL’s OA policy
> <http://roarmap.eprints.org/690/> alone is not compliant with the
> requirement for REF2020 eligibility, and the above extract does not change
> that one bit!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stevan
>
>
> King's College London
> General
> Country: Europe > Northern Europe > United Kingdom of Great Britain and
> Northern Ireland <http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/country/826.html> Policymaker
> type: Research organisation (e.g. university or research institution) Policymaker
> name: King's College London Policymaker URL:
> http://www.kcl.ac.uk/index.aspx Policy URL:
> http://www.kcl.ac.uk/governancezone/InformationPolicies/Open-Access-Policy.aspx Repository
> URL: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/ Policy adoption date: 16 July
> 2012 Source of policy: Administrative/management decision
> Policy Terms
> Deposit of item: Required Locus of deposit: Institutional Repository Date
> of deposit: When publisher permits Content types specified under the
> mandate: Peer-reviewed manuscripts Journal article version to be
> deposited: Not Specified Can deposit be waived?: Not specified Making
> deposited item Open Access: Required Can making the deposited item Open
> Access be waived?: Not Specified Date deposit to be made Open Access: When
> publisher permits
> Other Details
> Is deposit a precondition for research evaluation (the 'Liège/HEFCE
> Model')?: Yes Rights holding: Not Mentioned Can rights retention be
> waived?: Not specified Can author waive giving permission to make the
> article Open Access?: Not specified Policy's permitted embargo length for
> science, technology and medicine: 6 months Policy's permitted embargo
> length for humanities and social sciences: 12 months Can maximal
> allowable embargo length be waived?: Yes Open licensing conditions: Other Gold
> OA publishing option: Permitted alternative to Green self-archiving Funding
> for APCs where charged by journals: Funder provides specific additional
> funding for APCs APC fund URL (where available):
> http://www.kcl.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/openaccess/funding.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151111/e11a88a9/attachment-0001.html