<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style id=owaParaStyle>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Dear Stevan,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Many thanks for clarifying your position. But I see no need for your schoolmasterish tone, especially as it contradicts your demand for “…
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">showing some open-mindedness, flexibility and reflection</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> …” and less rigidity.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">I say that because I have learnt from this and other fora, from different studies and funders policies that your position is highly appreciated but other positions and approaches
are also discussed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(1) Before making a final judgment from a rather general perspective, please consult what happens in Austria and especially at the FWF since 2004:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">- The development of our OA policy is described in a policy paper published in February 2012:
<a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/free-research-needs-the-free-circulation-of-ideas.html">
http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/free-research-needs-the-free-circulation-of-ideas.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">- All major actions of the FWF since 2004 are publicly listed here:
<a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/public_relations/oai/oa-news.html">http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/public_relations/oai/oa-news.html</a> (sorry, most of them written in German).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(2) Sometimes it makes sense listing to the daily problems of OA policies and its environment:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(a) As you might know the FWF mandated Green OA in 2006, see:
<a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html">http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html</a>. But we became aware that this policy has its limits:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">- In 2006 no Austrian institution had a mandate or an IR. Today only some Austrian institutions have an IR but no one has an OA mandate. Moreover, it often not clear what kind of
materials should be deposited and what not: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Repositories:
<a href="http://roar.eprints.org/cgi/roar_search/advanced?location_country=at&software=&type=&order=-recordcount%2F-date">
http://roar.eprints.org/cgi/roar_search/advanced?location_country=at&software=&type=&order=-recordcount%2F-date</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Mandates:
<a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/geoname=5F2=5FAT.html">http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/geoname=5F2=5FAT.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">By organizing a nationwide network we now try to tackle these problems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(b) At the same time, we noted that a lot of Austrian scholars were/are voluntarily willing to deposit their articles in central disciplinary repositories like arxiv, Repec, SSRN,
Citeseer or PMC. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(c) With BMC, PLoS and others the need for covering APC arose. And we found it useful to support an alternative business model, as other renown institutions did, see:
<a href="http://www.oacompact.org/">http://www.oacompact.org/</a> ,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(d) I do not agree with your position that Gold OA is costly and Green OA is nearly for free. In practice, Green OA costs a lot of time and money for creating repositories, establishing
mandates, having well-informed supporting staff, interpreting publishers policies, advising researchers, depositing papers, e.g.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">That might give you some reasons why we find, for example, that UKPMC offers a very good option to solve some these problems: an existing and highly excepted repository, clear guidelines
for the PIs, great technical support, e.g., see: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/public_relations/oai/pubmed.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/public_relations/oai/pubmed.pdf</a>
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Finally, we see no contradiction to support both Green and Gold the same time, but we think in the end a change of the business model should be envisaged.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">All the best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Falk<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="divRpF203399">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">Von:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> goal-bounces@eprints.org [goal-bounces@eprints.org]"
im Auftrag von "Stevan Harnad [amsciforum@gmail</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">.com]<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag, 20. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">Mai 2012 21:06<br>
<b>An:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI 10 meeting, post<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [GOAL] Re: Open Access Mandates: Q&A with the NIH</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Falk, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I profoundly hope that you are communicating with us on GOAL open-mindedly, with a view to gaining information you perhaps did not have, and with a readiness to revise policy if a valid case can be made for the
fact that it would help.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Because all too often, I have alas found, those who come to OA policy-making tend to make some initial judgments and decisions, implement them, and then when either practical experience itself, or those who have
more and longer experience in OA and OA policy, call into question those initial judgments and decisions, the response is: "My mind's made up, don't annoy me with facts!" and the initial policy simply becomes more and more firmly entrenched, regardless of
the consequences.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It is too early for such rigidity, Falk. And Andrew and I (and many others) are trying to explain to you what is amiss with both the FWF policy and the rationales that you are voicing here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">You wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <<a href="mailto:Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at" target="_blank">Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Stevan, Andrew,<br>
<br>
a) [1] an IR has to exist and that is often not the case. [2] And if an IR exists it is often not used, [3] mandate or not. [4] Here some central disciplinary respositories are much more successfull as PMC/UKPMC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1. Many, many institutions have repositories, and those that do not yet have one are merely a free piece of software and a server sector away form having one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">2. Yes, almost all existing repositories are unused (at least 80% of annual institutional refereed research output is not deposited). But *that is the point*! That's precisely why deposit mandates are needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">3. It is an enormous factual error, however, to say that institutional repositories are unused whether or not they have a mandate. Again, that is the whole point. There is abundant evidence that institutions that
mandate deposit are not near 80% empty but near 80% full! (And especially when they have adopted the optimal ID/OA mandate of U. Liege.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">4. It is also an enormous factual error to state that central repositories like PMC/UKPMC are exceptions to the 20/80 rule (i.e., that only 20% of total research output is deposited un-mandated). The total research
output of an institution is all the refereed journal articles, in all disciplines, that its authors publish each year. The total research output of a central discipline-based repository is all the refereed journal articles published each year *by all authors
in that discipline, in all institutions worldwide.* To imagine otherwise is to fall into the denominator fallacy --<a href="http://bit.ly/oaDenFal" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/oaDenFal</a> :<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The annual percentage use of a repository is the annual ratio of deposited articles to all target articles within its ambit. For an institution, the denominator is obvious, and easily estimated. For an entire discipline,
it is far from obvious, but it too can be estimated. And I can assure you that the un-mandated Bio-Medical Research content of PMC/UKPMC is no higher than the global 20% baseline for all other disciplines. What gives the illusion that it is otherwise is two
things, one trivial, one nontrivial:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The trivial reason for this profound error and misconception is the simple fact that disciplines are much bigger than institutions. So the absolute number of articles in a disciplinary repository is much bigger
than those in any institutional repository, even though their un-mandated content is just 20% in both cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The nonrivial reason for this profound error is the fact that much of PMC/UKPMC content is *mandated* (by NIH, MRC, Wellcome Trust), and for that subset the percentage deposit is of course much higher -- *exactly
as it is with institutional mandated content*.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So the overall error is to conflate central repository content and mandated content, and incorrectly (and misleadingly) deduce that central repositories are doing better than institutional repositories because
they are bigger and have more deposits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Reflection will show that it is *mandates* that generate deposits, not centrality or disciplinarity (irrespective of whether the mandates are institutional mandates or funder mandates). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">(The Physics Arxiv is the sole exception, where un-mandated deposits are close to 100%, and have been for two decades: But two decades is far too long to keep waiting in the hope that the physicists' spontaneous,
un-mandated self-archiving practices would generalize to other disciplines: they have not. That's why the OA movement has moved toward supporting mandates.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">And as several of us have now stated, the functionality of a central repository for navigation and search (which is certainly incomparably better than the functionality of any single institutional repository, where
no one would ever dream of doing navigation and search) is fully preserved if the central repository harvests the metadata and links to the full-text from institutional repositories. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The point being made here about the importance of ensuring that both institutional and funder mandates collaborate and converge on institutional deposit instead of diverging and competing is that it makes a huge
practical difference -- both to the burden on authors and to the probability of persuading institutions (who are the universal providers of all refereed research, funded and funded, in all disciplines) to adopt deposit mandates of their own -- whether funders
mandate institutional deposit or institution-external deposit: http://</span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="http://bit.ly/OAloc" target="_blank">bit.ly/OAloc</a></span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">But Falk, you do not seem to be hearing this in these exchanges so far: you seem instead o return over and over to funding Gold OA fees rather than mandating Green OA. Is there any hope of drawing your attention
to this much more fundamental and urgent question, on which the prospects of OA growth in upcoming years hinges?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">b) We believe that OA is better supported by the Gold road and therefore a change of the business model is needed. That means costs should be covered by APCs or institutions or mixed models.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It is a great pity if you are rigidly committed to this belief, which is not only erroneous (for the many reasons we have been describing) but costly, because of the premature, pre-emptive focus on getting OA by
paying Gold OA fees instead of by mandating Green OA -- and designating institutional repositories as the locus for direct deposit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">If funders do that, institutions (the universal providers) will mandate Green OA too, and we will have 100% OA (Green). That will already solve the research accessibility problem, completely.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">But it is also the fastest and surest way to eventually convert journals to Gold OA (and liberate the subscription money to pay for it.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Solving the research access problem does not immediately solve the journal affordability problem too -- but does make it into a far less urgent, life/death matter (since with 100% Green OA, all users have access,
whether or not journals are afforded or cancelled.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I profoundly hope you will set a good example for other policy-makers, by showing some open-mindedness, flexibility and reflection on these crucial questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Stevan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Von: Andrew A. Adams [<a href="mailto:aaa@meiji.ac.jp" target="_blank">aaa@meiji.ac.jp</a>]<br>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 14:11<br>
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Reckling, Falk, Dr.<br>
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Mandates: Q&A with the NIH<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
><br>
> We think thatthe most important action right now is the national as well international coordination:<br>
><br>
> a) A lot of Austrian research institutions and universities have notyet established an OA policy, repositories or publication funds for OA publishing. Therefore, together with other institutions wecurrently try to organise an Austrian network which implements
and coordinates such activities.<br>
><br>
> b) UKPMC is working hard to extend the consortium to evolve towards PMC Europe.<br>
><br>
> c) For ScienceEurope (the new umbrella organisation of all major European research funders and research performing agencies) OA is one of the key topics.Therefore, a working group is established which will formulate recommendations for common actions (standards
for funding APCs, incentives for high-level OA journals, OA for research data, e.g.)<br>
><br>
> The OA movement was characterized by institutional or country based examples and experiments so far, which was in the sense of trial and error very important. But to accelerate the development and to reach the tipping point, we think it now needs more international
cooperation and common standards.<br>
<br>
Falk,<br>
<br>
As the previous two UK administrations (Blair and Brown) found to their<br>
(political and UK taxpayers financial) immense cost, large centralised<br>
databases are very hard to develop, maintain and populate. If we consider the<br>
UK's NHS IT systems we see that a decade of attempts to put in place a single<br>
overall system has been precisely worse than useless. The main project<br>
delivered nothing of significant value and impeded local efforts because<br>
either they weren't started (why do something local when one is promised that<br>
something national is on the way) or because they were done but tried to keep<br>
up with the ever-moving chimera of the NPfIT.<br>
<br>
Institutional repositories are the natural scope for university-based<br>
research. The technology (eprint and dspace) is there, as is the<br>
interoperability (SWORD et al). The relatively smaller number of<br>
non-university researchers have options of the opendepot for non-affiliated<br>
researchers or the option of implementing the same technology as universities<br>
for other institutions (individually or as consortia). The side benefits to<br>
running one's own repository in terms of efficiency of promoting the<br>
institutions' research output, monitoring the output of staff (for promotion,<br>
funder mandate compliance and other purposes) should more than outweigh the<br>
costs of supporting a local repository, which are not large compared to the<br>
other systems that most universities operate (student registration databases,<br>
scientific computation services...).<br>
<br>
The vast majority of papers produced by any government research-body-funded<br>
research have at least one co-author at a research university or similar<br>
academic institution.<br>
<br>
The obvious move is to mandate local deposit, with compliance a requirement<br>
on the institution and the individual researcher (primarily the PI) who can<br>
be motivated by a requirement on future funding - as with the Liege model<br>
internally, only papers deposited full-text in the repository under an ID/OA<br>
setting can be considered as formal outputs and used to justify future<br>
funding applications.<br>
<br>
Central deposit can be automated using SWORD and a simple set of keywords<br>
(UKPMC for anything that should be deposited in there, for example).<br>
<br>
I find it strange that the simple logic of this escapes anyone considering<br>
how to move forward with OA from the funder side. Fund IRs instead of<br>
pre-emptive Gold/Hybrid fees and mandate local deposit (enforced by final<br>
report and future funding applications only being allowed to refer to IR<br>
deposited papers). Promote whatever central harvesting is useful for<br>
particular fields (medical research) automatically by simple keyword match.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Professor Andrew A Adams <a href="mailto:aaa@meiji.ac.jp" target="_blank">aaa@meiji.ac.jp</a><br>
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and<br>
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics<br>
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan <a href="http://www.a-cubed.info/" target="_blank">
http://www.a-cubed.info/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>