<br>On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at" target="_blank">Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Just on UKPMC:<br>
- a the moment around 50% is Green and around 50% is Gold or Hybrid Gold<br>
- from the Gold papers 1/3 is real Gold and 2/3 is Hybrid Gold<br>
- Stevan, as you might know, major publishers as Elsevier or Wiley do not allow Green at UKPMC<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Falk, I know that very well.</div><div><br></div><div>But all UKPMC need do is harvest the metadata from the Institutional Repository, if the article is deposited in the Institutional Repository.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">No, we have not too much money but our practise says:<br>
<br>
(a) PMC/UKPMC is by far the most accepted repository in the Life Sciences<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is what is needed in Life Sciences (and all fields) Open Access (free online access) or an "accepted repository"?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Besides, as I said, institution-external repositories can harvest the metadata and links once an article is OA in an institutional repository.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(b) Researchers are much more willing to deposit their papers in PMC/UKPMC as in institutional repositories (that's rather annoying for most of them).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Falk, can you tell me how/why depositing in their IR is annoying when depositing in PMC/UKPMC is not: it's the same number of keystrokes, and OA either way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What's true, though is that some biomed funders have mandated OA, but most institutions have not: But that's the point. Funder and institutional mandates need to be made convergent and collaborative, rather than divergent and competitive. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And institutions are the providers of *all* research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We also see some benefits for funders by the hybrid mode:<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You mean hybrid Gold? (And you mean despite the high cost?)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- a central and highly accepted repository of peer-reviewed article<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As noted above, institution-external repositories can harvest the metadata and links (just as google does) once a paper is OA in an institutional repository.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So it is not either/or. That is a false opposition. And there are enormous benefits form making authors' institutions the uniform locus of direct deposit.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- very high visibility by PMC/UKPMC<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As noted above, institution-external repositories can harvest the metadata and links (just as google does) once a paper is OA in an institutional repository.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- text and data mining options<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Same as above.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- deposition by the publishers<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is not a plus but a huge minus! </div><div><br></div><div>Not only is Gold OA and hybrid OA very costly per aper, whereas Green OA costs next to nothing per paper. Not only is publication already paid for in full by subscription costs. But publishers are not bound by funder mandates: *fundees* are. On the contrary, it is in publishers interests to constrain, restrain, delay and deter OA for as long as possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I must say that this is extremely short-sighted thinking on the part of FWF!</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- data quality (correct acknowledgements of funders, e.g.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Metadata can not only be harvested from Institutional Repositories, but they can be enriched: Is that what you instead want to pay 3000 euros per article for?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On the other side, we see that this funding model cannot sustainable in the long run. Therefore, we try our best to develop our policy further.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>In the long run, universally mandated Green OA will induce a natural transition to sustainable Gold OA. </div><div><br></div><div>But this premature, pre-emptive hybrid Gold OA is not only needlessly expensive (hence unsustainable) but also cannot and will not produce anywhere near 100% OA.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I strongly FWF to read</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a">
<b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-How-to-Maximize-Compliance-With-Funder-OA-Mandates-Potentiate-Institutional-Mandates.html">How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate Institutional Mandates</a></b></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html</a></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a">
<br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">and</span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a">
<br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana"><b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-Public-Access-to-Federally-Funded-Research-Harnad-Response-to-US-OSTP-RFI-Part-1-of-2.html">Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Harnad Response to US OSTP RFI)</a></b></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html</a></p><p></p></div></div></blockquote>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">and to rethink and optimize the implementation of the FWF OA mandate, in the interest OA.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Inform your fundees of what I have drawn to your attention. Perhaps then they will no longer find institutional deposit "annoying"...</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Best wishes,</span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13.0px Verdana;color:#ff201a"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Stevan</span></p></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Am 19.05.2012 um 19:41 schrieb "Stevan Harnad" <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>>>:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <<a href="mailto:Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at">Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at">Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
The FWF (Austrian Science Fund) has been joined UKPMC in April 2010 and reached in November 2011 a compliance rate of around 65%. One major reason seems to be that we are able to pay publication costs three years after the project is finished, see: <a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/peer-reviewed_publications.html" target="_blank">http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/peer-reviewed_publications.html</a><br>
<br>
The FWF Open Access Mandate<<a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/33/" target="_blank">http://roarmap.eprints.org/33/</a>>, according to ROARMAP, is the following:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html</a><br>
"FWF requires all project leaders and workers to make their publications freely available through open access media on the Internet. Exceptions to the open access requirement can only be made in cases where it is not possible for legal reasons. In such cases, the FWF requires grant recipients to provide justification to this effect in their final project reports… Free access to publications can either be ensured through direct publication in open access journals or by archiving electronic copies of previously published original articles in subject-specific or institutional repositories..."<br>
<br>
Are you suggesting that it's compliance rate of 65% is all or mostly dues to FWF-funded research being published in Gold OA journals, at the cost of up to 3000 euros?<br>
<br>
...the costs of journal articles should not exceed EUR 3,000.00. (upon consultation with the FWF, exceptions may be made in some cases)...<br>
<br>
Are there really that many suitable Gold OA journals for FWF researchers to publish in instead of the established subscription journals? Or is this hybrid Gold OA (double-payment)?<br>
<br>
And does FWF really have that much spare research money to spend on Gold OA fees instead of research, when subscriptions are still paying for publication and FWF researchers could provide immediate Green OA for over 60% (including most of the top journals in every discipline) at no added cost (and Almost-OA for the remaining 40%, during any OA embargo period)?<br>
<br>
A statistical breakdown of the FWF 65% by Green, Gold, hybrid Gold, field and cost would be very informative for us all.<br>
<br>
Stevan Harnad<br></blockquote></div>