<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font face="Arial">Some responses to UKCRC Comments on <b style="text-align:center">UKCRC/CPHC Response to HEFCE Open Access Consultation</b>:</font><div>
<font face="Arial"><br></font></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px"><b><font face="Arial">UKCRC reply to Question 1 </font></b></p></div><font face="Arial"><i>Although UKCRC and CPHC strongly supports open access, and thinks this should be encouraged by HEFCE and the Research Councils, we oppose the policy of introducing criteria other than research excellence into the REF research assessment process</i>. </font></div>
</blockquote><div><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial">This is a profound (and potentially extremely damaging) misunderstanding: </font></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><i>HEFCE is not proposing repository deposit as a criterion for research assessment. </i></font></p>
<div><br></div><div>It is proposing repository deposit as the<i> mechanism for submitting published papers for research assessment.</i></div><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px"><font face="Arial"><b>UKCRC reply to Question 2a </b></font></p> <i>Although we think that authors should make their publications available as early as possible, it requires considerable manual effort to enter information at time of acceptance, whereas this can often be automated after publication on publishers web pages, so the criteria should only insist on publication time plus about three months to allow automated processing </i></div>
</blockquote><div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><b></b><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><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 style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial">In contrast, the submission date (for the unrefereed draft) and acceptance date (for the final, refereed, revised, accepted draft) are both very specific, explicit calendar dates, in the author's workflow. </font></div>
<div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial">In addition, the publisher constraints and embargoes and uncertainties are all on the publisher's version of record, not on the author's final draft.</font></div>
<div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial">Hence it would be extremely counterproductive to recommend to HEFCE that the reference point should be the indeterminate date of publication rather than determinate date of acceptance.</font></div>
<div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial">I do not know why it is stated that "</font><i>it requires considerable manual effort to enter information at time of acceptance" </i>since that is the only determinate date, and we are talking about a few keystrokes, and the process could be as easily "automated" as the import of the version of record from the publisher's website -- except that it would occur much, much earlier.</div>
<div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div style="margin:0px"><b><font face="Arial">UKCRC reply to Question 2b:</font></b></div>
</div><div style="margin:0px"><b><font face="Arial"><br></font></b></div><div><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px"><i><font face="Arial">We do not see the necessity for insisting on outputs being accessed only through UK HEI repositories, as some communities use international ones such as ACM Author-izer Service, ArXiv, PubMed etc.. </font></i></p>
</div></blockquote><div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><b></b>Automatic import can be and has been designed from Arxiv to institutional repositories. The other sites are much too late in time and much more indeterminate in date.</font></div>
<div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;min-height:12px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>
<div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial"><b>UKCRC reply to Question 3: </b></font></div><i>We agree that pressure should be put on publishers to reduce embargo periods for Green Open Access, but we do not support banning REF submissions of outputs, from publishers that do not meet these criteria. </i></div>
</blockquote><div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial"><i><br></i></font></div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial">Again, a profound misunderstanding: </font></div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial">What HEFCE mandates is <i>deposit</i> of the final draft immediately upon acceptance. It does not mandate that the deposit be made <i>immediately OA</i>. There is no constraint whatsoever an author choice of journal.</font></div>
<div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial">The allowable embargo length is an entirely different matter, to be determined by RCUK and author practice. HEFCE is just stipulating the timing and locus of deposit. The HEFCE deposit mandate, however, will be an enormous help in ensuring that access delays are as short as possible (and eventually zero)</font></div>
<div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial">I hope these </font><span style="font-family:Arial;text-align:center">UKCRC/CPHC</span><font face="Arial"> recommendations will be reconsidered, especially in light of the fact that "</font>the Computing Science community has Green open access as its dominant style of publication." The HEFCE mandate is needed for all those other disciplines that do not yet have the wisdom of <span style="font-family:Arial;text-align:center">UKCRC/CPHC!</span></div>
<div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px"><font face="Arial">Stevan Harnad</font></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><div>On 2013-10-07, at 11:59 AM, Morris Sloman <<a href="mailto:M.Sloman@IMPERIAL.AC.UK" target="_blank">M.Sloman@IMPERIAL.AC.UK</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite">HEFCE are proposing that only open access papers can be submitted to the next REF after 2014.<br>See <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/" target="_blank">http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/</a> for an overview of their proposals<br>
<br>The full consultation questions can be down loaded from<br><br><a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201316/" target="_blank">http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201316/</a><br><br><br>I attach the Draft combined UKCRC/CPHC response to the consultation.<br>
Although we agree with open access we do not think this is a criteria for REF submission. The only criteria should be quality of research. <br><br>Closing date for comments is 25 October to allow me time to collate in the final version. <br>
<br>I urge people to try and influence their own institutions to respond to this.<br><br>HEFCE claims they have widespread support for the policy. <br></blockquote></div></div></div></div><br></div>