<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Graham Triggs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grahamtriggs@gmail.com" target="_blank">grahamtriggs@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>"The funding bodies propose the following criteria for open access"</div>
<div>"We propose that outputs fulfilling the following definition must meet these criteria to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF... including the option of a percentage-based approach to compliance that would allow HEIs flexibility in preparing a submission to the post-2014 REF"</div>
<div><br></div><div>Seems very clear that it is describing a criterion, not a mechanism.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>No, <i>eligibility for submission</i> does not mean <i>criterion of assessment</i>. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Try it on this one in order to grasp the distinction:</div><div style><br></div><div style>"For eligibility, papers must henceforth be submitted in digital form, not as hard copy." </div>
<div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> <font face="Arial">As the </font><span style="font-family:Arial;text-align:center">UKCRC/CPHC</span><font face="Arial"> response itself states, "publication time" is extremely vague and variable, and can diverge by years from submission date.</font></div>
<div><br></div><div>Publication time may significantly diverge from submission date, but it is not extremely vague - it's usually precise to a day, and if not a month. And more importantly, unlike the submission and acceptance dates, it is a matter of public record.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>No, publication time for most journals corresponds to the date that appears on the issue (which may be quarterly, or might specify a month). But that calendar date (if any) often does not coincide with when the issue actually appears, which can be much -- sometimes much, much -- later than the calendar date (if any) (as many authors know). Nor does the author always even get notified when his article actually appears, in real time.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>In short, "publication date" is not only arbitrarily late if access matters, but far too unpredictable to base a systematic policy of time-based deposit (or compliance verification) upon. (Think about it.)</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The only reliable, date-stamped marker for the author and the author's institution, and hence for HEFCE and RCUK (besides the submission date) is the date of acceptance, on which the author will have a dated email or letter informing him of acceptance.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Institutions, eager as always to meet REF procedures to the letter, will (easily) find a systematic internal way to verify the deposit date coincides with acceptance date.</div><div style><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Yes, but they are not (generally) a matter of public record. Which makes it very difficult to enforce a criterion based on them.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>What <i>is</i> a matter of "public record," as just noted, is a vague, late date some arbitrary, varying and indeterminate time <i>after</i> the calendar date (if any) of the journal issue.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>And for a reliable, systematic mechanism for compliance with the HEFCE and RCUK mandates what is needed is something with which the institution can ensure timely compliance. That something is the author's dated acceptance letter. (That also marks the point in the author's work-flow when it is known that this is the accepted final draft, and can now be deposited.)</div>
<div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>publisher constraints are on the version that is subject to a CTA, which is generally the author's final draft.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>More publishers embargo their proprietary version-of-record than the author's final draft. </div><div style><br></div><div style>And as to the embargoes on the author's final draft, I've already said that the mandate's immediate-deposit clause (plus the repository's facilitated eprint-request Button) moot the embargo: All accepted drafts can be deposited immediately upon acceptance; at least 60% of them can be made immediately OA; the remaining c. 40% can be made restricted access, and users and authors can rely on the Button to provide Almost-OA during the embargo.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The important thing is that the immediate-deposit clause makes it possible for all institutions and all funders, worldwide, to ensure that all papers are deposited immediately upon acceptance. It is a "keystroke mandate."</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>That done, the rest of the transition to 100% Green OA will be surprisingly and refreshingly fast and easy. It is only this keystroke-barrier that stands between us and 100% OA today.</div>
<div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>A portion of the information - pagination, issue, publication date - will not be available at time of acceptance. And if it was really that painless for academics, a lot more would already be doing it.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Who cares?</div><div style><br></div><div style>The paper will be immediately accessible and the page information will be available later.</div><div style><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div>Arxiv would only get you the pre-print, whereas the Hefce proposals call for it to be "made available as the final peer-reviewed text".<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Arxiv authors do not deposit -- and have not been depositing, since the beginning -- only their unrefereed drafts: they can make 5 updates, and most include the final, refereed draft too. (Often in physics, though, the refereeing does not introduce any substantive changes, I am told, so the unrefereed preprint is the same as the refereed postprint.)</div>
<div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>Hefce does "propose that embargo periods are aligned with the Research Councils’ open access policy, and those endorsed by Government6. [Hefce] propose that the REF main panels will follow the embargo period set by the appropriate Research Council".<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Who cares?</div><div style><br></div><div style>The RCUK will work out the issue of embargoes. (Right now it is, in its wisdom, proposing to <i>ignore</i> them for at least 2 more years!)</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Meanwhile, HEFCE/REF will ensure that all papers are deposited immediately.</div><div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div>If a publisher chooses to not allow immediate deposit / adopts embargo periods that exceed that set by the appropriate Research Council, then it will constrain choice of journal.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div style>No it won't. Authors will still publish in their journal of choice, and deposit immediately upon acceptance (as dictated by HEFCE) and embargoes will take care of themselves. (RCUK certainly won't be able to take care of them!)</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But one of the (several) reasons for author (and institution) rebellion against the current Finch/RCUK policy will fall quietly by the wayside: Authors will preserve their right to publish in whatever journal they choose (and not have to pay to publish either, if they don't wish to).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Thanks to HEFCE/REF.</div><div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div></div></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra">UKCRC/CPHC are absolutely correct to state a risk of constraint on journal choice, if there isn't a guarantee from the publishers that they will offer deposit terms in accordance with the Hefce proposals for at least the entire duration of the REF period.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>For HEFCE/REF all that's needed is immediate deposit. Complying with publisher embargoes is not a HEFCE/REF matter; nor is the length of what RCUK ultimately deems to be the allowable embargo.<br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>Meanwhile, the immediate-deposit clause (and the Button) moot the embargo matter altogether.</div><div style><br></div><div style>So let's be neither pedants nor pessimists about all this: It's all heading in a sensible direction, at last.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Stevan Harnad</div></div><br></div></div>