<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 2013-10-08, at 8:12 AM, Stephen Linton <<a href="mailto:sl4@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK">sl4@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">A question:<div><br></div><div>Are there current respectable publication venues that preclude putting a copy in an </div><div>institutional repository on terms that would be acceptable to HEFCE for the REF?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>No. <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php">60% of journals</a> already endorse immediate, unembargoed OA. Of the remaining</div><div>40%, most endorse an OA embargo of about a year. Hence a one year delay is the</div><div>figure to beat. And HEFCE/REF immediate-deposit requirement does just that, by</div><div>generating 60% immediate-OA and 40% Almost-OA (as mediated by the repositories'</div><div>automated eprint-request <a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy">Button</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>(In case there is any misunderstanding on this score, <i>no publisher has any say</i></div><div><i>whatsoever over whether and when an author deposits one of his own papers</i></div><div><i>in his own institutional repository under restricted (non-OA) access</i> -- only, </div><div>repository manager and REF readers have access. That is strictly a matter</div><div>of institutional archiving and accounting.)</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>This seems to be the key issue. If there are such venues, then</div><div>all the problems people are suggesting are real -- I, or my co-authors</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>might want to publish some work in such a venue. If so, I have to decide</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>whether this is likely to be work I might want to use for the REF at the</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>time of submission. My co-authors might be overseas and have reasons</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>of their own for wanting a particular venue. In this case, this the response</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>seems appropriate.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This is a pseudo-problem. There are no such "venues". <i>HEFCE/REF restores</i></div><div><i>UK authors' freedom of choice to publish in any venue they wish</i> (journal or</div><div>conference): all they need to do is deposit the refereed, accepted draft in their</div><div>insitutional repositories, immediately upon acceptance, whether or not OA</div><div>is embagoed.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>If there are no such venues, then it's a non-issue, or at worst a bit of annoying</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>bureaucracy. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>There are no such venues. Immediate-deposit is a <a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/soton-policy.pdf">bureaucratic ("keystroke")</a></div><div>mandate, not a copyright issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 7 Oct 2013, at 16:59, Morris Sloman <<a href="mailto:M.Sloman@IMPERIAL.AC.UK">M.Sloman@IMPERIAL.AC.UK</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">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/">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/">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>
<br>
<br>
Morris <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<span><UKCRC-CPHC-OA ResponseV2.pdf></span></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>