<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">Jon Crowcroft jon.crowcroft -- <a href="http://cl.cam.ac.uk">cl.cam.ac.uk</a><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">August 4, 2012 2:34:28 AM EDT<br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><blockquote type="cite">I agree 100%<br></blockquote><br>On Friday, August 3, 2012, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 2012-08-03, at 7:33 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:<br> <br><blockquote type="cite"> while I support the intention, for many of us who publsh with ACM and<br>
IEEE, we have been allowed to put open access copies in our own<br> repositories for ages- but keep up the pressure on the "pay for<br> publish" idea as its a) iniqutious rifling of the public purse and b)<br>
priced ludicrously high in any case...<br></blockquote> <br>Why "but"? It sounds like you mean "and"!<br> <br>On no account should UK research funds be redirected to paying publishers<br>extra for "hybrid" Gold OA whilst they are already being paid more than<br>enough via subscriptions.<br> <br>And yes, all the ACM and IEEE journals are on the "side of the angels,"<br>being among the 60% of journals that already recognize the author's right<br>to provide un-embargoed open access to the author's refereed final draft<br>immediately upon acceptance for publication ("Green OA").<br> <br>The 40% of journals that still try to embargo Green OA, however, are no<br>longer the biggest problem.<br> <br>The biggest problem in the UK has very recently become the recommendations<br>of the Finch Committee, commissioned and accepted by the Science/Universities<br>Minister David Willets, recommending the phase-out of cost-free Green OA,<br>downgraded to digital preservation archiving, and instead mandating OA exclusively<br>via "Gold" OA publishing, through extra payment out of the UK's scarce research<br>funds.<br> <br>To compound this folly, RCUK, which formerly had a Green OA self-archiving mandate<br>that had served as a model for the rest of the world, now proposes to mandate that<br>UK fundees may only publish in journals that either offer Gold OA or allow Green OA<br>(with a maximum embargo of 6-12 months), and if the journal offers Gold OA, fundees<br>must chose paid Gold OA over cost-free Green OA.<br> <br>(May I post this reply to the cphc list?)<br> <br>Stevan Harnad<br><br> Stevan Harnad typed:<br><br><br> On 2012-08-01, at 10:42 AM, David De Roure wrote:<br><br>Hi Stevan - I confirm that this talk has been scheduled for Tuesday =<br> September 11th.<br>The Digital Research 2012 website is =<br><a href="http://digital-research.oerc.ox.ac.uk/=20">http://digital-research.oerc.ox.ac.uk/=20</a><br><br> Dear Dave,<br><br> Thanks, here's my the title and abstract for my DR2102 keynote. (Can I =<br> assume that the time will be Tuesday morning 9-10:30?)<br><br> Best wishes,<br><br> Stevan<br><br><br> Digital Research: How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be =<br> Revised<br><br> The Web is destined to become humankind's Cognitive Commons, where =<br> digital knowledge is jointly created and freely shared. The UK has been =<br> a leader in the global movement toward Open Access (OA) to research but =<br> very recently its leadership has been derailed by the joint influence of =<br> the publishing industry lobby from without and well-intentioned but =<br> premature and counterproductive over-reaching from within the OA =<br> movement itself. The result has been the extremely counter-productive =<br> Finch Committee Report followed by a new draft of the RCUK OA policy, =<br> downgrading the role of cost-free OA self-archiving of research =<br> publications ("Green OA") in favour of paying subscription publishers =<br> extra money, over and above subscriptions, out of scarce research funds, =<br> in exchange for making single articles OA ("hybrid Gold OA"). The =<br> motivation is to reform publication and to gain certain re-use rights, =<br> but the likely effect will be researcher resistance, very little OA, a =<br> waste of scarce research funds and the loss of the UK's global =<br> leadership in the OA movement. There is still time to fix the RCUK =<br> policy. I will try to describe how and why.<br><br> Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) =<br> Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and =<br> Fruitful Collaboration.=20<br> =09<br> =E2=80=A8Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The =<br> Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in =<br> Jacobs, N., Ed. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic =<br> Aspects Chandos.=20<br><br> Harnad, Stevan (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private =<br> Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. =<br> Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton=20<br><br> Harnad, Stevan (2012) Why the UK Should Not Heed the Finch Report. LSE =<br> Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Summer Issue=20<br><br> Poynder, Richard (2012) OA advocate Stevan Harnad withdraws support for =<br> RCUK policy. Open and Shut July 26 2012=20<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>