<div>Dear Larry,</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with you. </div><div><br></div><div>HEFCE/REF should not not make OA mandatory for books/monographs. </div><div><br></div><div>Even deposit need not be mandatory: Merely urged, wherever possible. (I doubt that there would be many objections to Dark Deposit.) </div>
<div><br></div><div>Insisting on book deposit would, again, be needless over-reaching, and gratuitously inviting author resistance. </div><div><br></div><div>As much book OA as scholars and scientists want and need will come -- but only after Green OA for articles has prevailed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan</div><div><br></div>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:48 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:l.hurtado@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">l.hurtado@ed.ac.uk</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">Thanks to Steven Harnad for giving us his enthusiastic view on the<br>
HEFCE prooposd policy for REF and OA. Among my concerns that he<br>
doesn't address, however, is one that will be shared by many/all in<br>
the Humanities (almost always the Cinderella at the OA ball): What<br>
about books?<br>
Though scientists especially use journal articles as THE mode of<br>
publication of original research, the nature of work in the Humanities<br>
(which is often more integrative and discoursive, involving/requiring<br>
extended analysis and argumentation) often requires a book-length<br>
treatment. Indeed, in Humanities field, typically the most<br>
high-impact work appears as/in single-author books.<br>
<br>
Moreover, these include often (perhaps dominantly), not only technical<br>
"monographs" (which are often revised PhD theses), but (especially<br>
among more seasoned scholars) "free-standing" books, and these<br>
published by various university presses but also "trade" publishers.<br>
Many of these aren't based in the UK.<br>
<br>
It will be difficult (and unlikely) to get all these publishers to<br>
allow the immediate deposit of the page-proofs in an OA desository.<br>
So, will this mean that what has been heretofore the most respected<br>
form of research-publication in the Humanities will be disallowed in<br>
the next REF? There is a short paragraph on "monographs" in the HEFCE<br>
consultation paper, but it only reflects the inadequate understanding<br>
of the place of *books* in the Humanities.<br>
<br>
We urgently need HEFCE to bring Humanities scholars more into the<br>
magic circle of policy/practice makers.<br>
<br>
Larry Hurtado<br>
<br>
Quoting Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>> on Thu, 14 Mar 2013<br>
08:40:12 -0400:<br>
<br>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Andy Powell<br>
> <<a href="mailto:andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk">andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Supposing this Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate leads to a<br>
>> situation where we achieve 100% immediate deposit of the final<br>
>> peer-reviewed draft of journal articles to an institutional repository but<br>
>> where we also see a ?publisher norm? emerging of a 12-month embargo period?<br>
>> ****<br>
>><br>
>> ** **<br>
>><br>
>> Firstly, is that an unrealistic expectation of where this policy might get<br>
>> us?****<br>
>><br>
>> ** **<br>
>><br>
>> If so, would we consider this situation to have significantly advanced the<br>
>> OA cause?****<br>
>><br>
>> ** **<br>
>><br>
>> I agree that the separation of ?immediate deposit? from ?embargo period?<br>
>> is important but I also worry that doing so effectively becomes a way for<br>
>> publishers to stifle progress towards true OA but setting lengthy embargo<br>
>> periods? Further, there seems to be nothing in this policy that mitigates<br>
>> against this happening?****<br>
>><br>
>> ** **<br>
>><br>
>> Or am I misunderstanding the situation?<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Please read the comments, not just the Executive Summary, as they<br>
> explicitly answer your question.<br>
><br>
> Meanwhile, here is the answer to your question, put in a different way, in<br>
> response to: *RCUK fails to end ?green? embargo<br>
> confusion*<<a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/rcuk-fails-to-end-green-embargo-confusion/2002538.article" target="_blank">http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/rcuk-fails-to-end-green-embargo-confusion/2002538.article</a>><br>
> " *THE* 14 March 2013:<br>
><br>
> *<br>
> KEYSTROKE MANDATES<br>
> *<br>
><br>
> What a mess! With publishers eagerly pawing at the Golden Door, and RCUK<br>
> hopelessly waffling at Green embargo limits and their enforcement.<br>
><br>
> But relief is on the way! HEFCE has meanwhile quietly and gently proposed a<br>
> solution that will moot all this relentless cupidity and stupidity.<br>
><br>
> HEFCE has proposed to mandate that in order to be eligible for the Research<br>
> Excellence Framework<br>
> (REF)<<a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/news/news/2013/open_access_letter.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/news/news/2013/open_access_letter.pdf</a>>,<br>
> the final, peer-reviewed drafts of all papers published as of 2014 will<br>
> have to be deposited in the author's institutional<br>
> repository<<a href="http://roar.eprints.org/" target="_blank">http://roar.eprints.org/</a>> immediately<br>
> upon publication: no delays, no embargoes, no exceptions -- irrespective of<br>
> whether the paper is published in a Gold OA journal or a subscription<br>
> journal, and irrespective of the allowable length of the embargo on making<br>
> the deposit OA: The deposit itself must be immediate.<br>
><br>
> This has the immense benefit that while the haggling continues about how<br>
> much will be paid for Gold OA and how long Green OA may be embargoed, all<br>
> papers will be faithfully deposited -- and deposited in institutional<br>
> repositories, which means that all UK universities will thereby be<br>
> recruited, as of 2014, to monitor and ensure that the deposits are made,<br>
> and made immediately. (Institutions have an excellent track record for<br>
> making sure that everything necessary for REF is done, and done reliably,<br>
> because a lot of money and prestige is at stake for them.)<br>
><br>
> And one of the ingenious features of the proposed HEFCE/REF Green OA<br>
> mandate is the stipulation that deposit may not be delayed: Authors cannot<br>
> wait till just before the next REF, six years later, to do it. If the<br>
> deposit was not immediate, the paper is ineligible for REF.<br>
><br>
> And, most brilliant stroke of all, this ensures that it is not just the 4<br>
> papers that are ultimately chosen for submission to REF that are deposited<br>
> immediately -- for that choice is always a retrospective one, made after<br>
> looking over the past 6 years' work, to pick the four best papers. Rarely<br>
> will this be known in advance. So the safest policy will be to deposit all<br>
> papers immediately, just in case.<br>
><br>
> This is precisely the compliance assurance mechanism the RCUK mandate so<br>
> desperately needs in order to succeed, but the RCUK policy-makers have not<br>
> yet had the wit to conceive and adopt. Well, HEFCE/REF have done it for<br>
> them, bless them.<br>
><br>
> But immediate-deposit is not immediate-OA you say? Indeed it is not. It<br>
> does, however, overcome OA's most formidable hurdle, which is getting all<br>
> those papers into the institutional repositories, and right away:<br>
> keystrokes. It is just those keystrokes that have stood between the<br>
> research world and OA for over over two decades now.<br>
><br>
> Once the institutional repositories are reliably being filled to 100%, does<br>
> anyone with the slightest imagination doubt what will follow, as nature<br>
> (and human nature) takes its course?<br>
><br>
> First, the repositories will facilitate sending reprints to those who<br>
> request a single copy for research purposes, with one click each. Sending<br>
> reprints is not OA; researchers have been doing it for a half century. But<br>
> they used to have to do it by reading *Current Contents* or scanning<br>
> journals' contents lists, mailing reprint requests, and then waiting and<br>
> hoping that authors would take the time and trouble and expense to mail<br>
> them a reprint, as requested (and many did). But now the whole transaction<br>
> is just one click each, and almost immediate, if the papers have been<br>
> deposited and both parties are at the wheel.<br>
><br>
> But that's still just Almost-OA. Once immediate-deposit is mandated,<br>
> however, about 60% of those deposits can be made immediately OA, because<br>
> about 60% of journals already endorse immediate, unembargoed Green OA.<br>
> (RCUK has already succeeded is dragging down that figure to somewhat closer<br>
> to 50/50 with its perverse preference for Gold, inspiring hybrid Gold<br>
> publishers to offer Gold and increase Green embargo lengths to try to force<br>
> UK authors to pick paid Gold over cost-free Green).<br>
><br>
> Now that's about half immediate-OA plus half Almost-OA to tide over<br>
> researcher needs during the embargo. But does anyone have any doubt about<br>
> what will happen next? As OA and Almost-OA grow, and the research community<br>
> tastes more and more of what it's like to have half immediate-OA and half<br>
> Almost-OA, all the disciplines that have not yet had the sense to do it<br>
> will begin to do what almost 100% of physicists have already been doing for<br>
> 20 years now without so much as a moment's hesitation or a "by your leave":<br>
><br>
> That last remaining keystroke, once a paper is written, revised, accepted<br>
> and deposited -- the keystroke that makes the paper OA -- will be done<br>
> sooner and sooner, more and more, until the embargoes with which publishers<br>
> are trying to hold research hostage will all die their natural and<br>
> well-deserved deaths as the research community learns to do the obvious,<br>
> optimal and inevitable, in the online era.<br>
><br>
> (Nor will peer-reviewed journal publishing die, as publishers keep warning<br>
> menacingly: It will simply convert to Gold OA -- but only after the<br>
> pressure from Green OA has forced journals to phase out all obsolete<br>
> products and services and their costs: that means phasing out the print<br>
> version and the online version, and offloading all access-providing and<br>
> archiving onto the global network of Green OA institutional repositories.<br>
> Then, instead of double-paying for Gold OA, as Finch folly and RCUK<br>
> recklessness would have us do -- subscriptions plus Gold OA fees --<br>
> post-Green Gold OA will just be a fee for the peer review service, at a<br>
> fair, affordable and sustainable price, paid for out of a fraction of<br>
> institutions' annual savings from subscription cancellations instead of out<br>
> of scarce research funds, over and above subscriptions, as now. Pre-Green<br>
> Gold is Fool's Gold: Post-Green Gold is Fair Gold.)<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE<br>
Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology<br>
Honorary Professorial Fellow<br>
New College (School of Divinity)<br>
University of Edinburgh<br>
Mound Place<br>
Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX<br>
Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952<br>
<a href="http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado" target="_blank">http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado</a><br>
<a href="http://www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com" target="_blank">www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in<br>
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">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><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>