<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked "restricted access" and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. <div><br></div><div>Jan Velterop</div><div><br><div><div>On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:11, Stevan Harnad wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>*** The faculty ignore the mandates.<br><br>This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of withholding grants and put huge efforts into promoting, still only get 55% compliance. <br>
<br>You have spent > 10 years trying to get effective mandates and they are hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%.<br><br>ZERO.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example, U. Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151">http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151</a></div><div><br></div><div>And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended.</div><div><br>
</div><div>Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were willing to listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in adopting an OA mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to advice for years, insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing publisher deposit, and wasting scarce research money on paying for Gold OA instead of shoring up their Green OA mandate.) </div>
<div><br></div><div>Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates with institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing:</div><div><br></div><div><div>Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model</div>
<div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate Institutional Mandates</div>
<div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html</a></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money?<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan & John Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA:</div><div><a href="http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf">http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf</a></div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Yes - and probably << 5% of VCs care about it. </div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and the effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits are large, and the costs are next to nothing: just effective policy-making and implementation. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if we continue as we are. We have to get much tougher. And university mandates are seen as next to useless - universities can't police them and it alienates the faculty.</div>
<br>The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler and quicker to carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the faculty - the less they care, the easier it is.<br><br>I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should unite and take decisive action.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the reachable, now, rather than fulminating about the unreachable (especially when reaching for the reachable, now, is eventually likely to bring more of the unreachable within reach).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>