<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2013-10-09, at 1:33 PM, Morris Sloman <<a href="mailto:M.Sloman@IMPERIAL.AC.UK">M.Sloman@IMPERIAL.AC.UK</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>People should actually read the text of the HEFCE consultation carefully </div><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite">25. The funding bodies therefore propose to treat as ‘open access’ outputs which fulfil</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all of the following criteria:<br> * accessible through a UK HEI repository, immediately upon either acceptance or publication <br> (to be decided, as outlined in paragraph 29), although the repository may provide access <br> in a way that respects agreed embargo periods.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>What's the problem? It has to be <i>deposited</i> immediately and <i>made OA</i> when the agreed embargo period elapses.</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"> * made available as the final peer-reviewed text, though not necessarily <br> identical to the publisher’s edited and formatted version<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Again, what's the problem? </div><div><br></div><div>The author's final peer-reviewed draft has far fewer publisher copyright restrictions and embargo </div><div>constraints than the publisher's version-of-record.</div><div><br></div><div>And it makes a world of a difference to would-be users who otherwise have no access at all. </div><div>(You think they'd rather have nothing if they can't have the version of record?)</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"> * presented in a form allowing the reader to search for and re-use content (including by</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">download and for text-mining), both manually and using automated tools, provided such re-use</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is subject to proper attribution under appropriate licensing.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Again, what's the problem? The mandate is suitably hedged as not forcing authors to violate </div><div>licensing agreements.</div><div><br></div><div>(Hence it only pays lip-service to re-use, but that's ok: Once there is universal immediate-deposit, </div><div>that will provide 60% immediate-OA and 40% Almost-OA (Button-mediate), which, in turn, </div><div>will lead to the natural death of all embargoes and 100% Green Gratis OA, which in turn </div><div>will lead to publishers downsizing and converting to Fair-Gold, paid for peer review alone, </div><div>along with all re-use rights users need and authors wish to provide.)</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">26. It remains our intention that work which has been originally published in an ineligible</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">form then retrospectively made available in time for the post-2014 REF submission date,</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">should not be eligible, as the primary objective of this proposal is to stimulate immediate</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">open-access publication. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>What that boils down to is nothing more nor less than that it is not enough to publish it: </div><div>it also has to be deposited immediately (whether or not it is made OA immediately).</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">The implications of this are: <br><br> The paper has to be ACCESSIBLE to the public via the HEI repository at a time</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> still to be defined by HEFCE<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The allowable OA embargo length is to be decided by RCUK, not HEFCE.</div><div><br></div><div>And with immediate-deposit, the articles in the 60% or journals that don't embargo </div><div>Green OA will be immediately accessible to the public as immediate-OA, and the 40% </div><div>that are embargoed will be immediately accessible to the public as Button-mediated </div><div>Almost OA (and OA after the allowable embargo elapses).</div><div><br></div><div>What are you arguing for? Requiring authors to ignore the embargo? Or for forbidding </div><div>authors to publish in a journal with an embargo that exceed's RCUK's (eventual) embargo limits?</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">If an academic is very busy and forgets to upload a copy of (accepted/published)</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">paper at the correct time (to be defined by HEFCE), the paper cannot be made</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">open access at a later time. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>Academics can forget to do all kinds of important things. They learn. Don't worry, </div><div>the several-decade obsessive compliance with every nuance of RAE requirements </div><div>will continue, but it will be simpler, cheaper and less time-consuming than in the </div><div>past -- and it will help accelerate and generate OA.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">This means an outstanding paper in the very top journal which perhaps has</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">10,000 citations and has led to a £100M spin-out, cannot be submitted to</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">post 2014 REF because the author was busy with a research proposal and</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">forgot to upload the paper at the right time. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>This is sensationalist spin. You could have said the very same if the author </div><div>had forgotten to submit this brilliant paper to RAE at all.</div><div><br></div><div>Please let's stay realistic instead of lapsing into far-fetched hype.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">This REF policy is introducing new paper selection criteria into REF and is</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">why it is important to try to get your institution to say the whole policy should</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">be stopped as it is not the right way to promote open access. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>No new paper selection criteria whatsoever. The criteria remain 100% quality </div><div>based, as before.</div><div><br></div><div>What is new is <i>the procedure for submission, and its timing</i>. (Think about it.) </div><div>Rather as if instead of submitting papers as hard copy we now had to submit </div><div>them electronically. (No change in "selection criteria".) And as if instead of </div><div>submitting them just the last year before REF, we had to update a running </div><div>list of candidates throughout the REF cycle (which is what many people are </div><div>already doing anyway.) (Again: No change in "selection criteria".) <br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">The current tone of the consultation is " Most institutions agree with this policy</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and we are just consulting on some of the mechanisms" <br></blockquote><br></div><div>And I certainly hope that's true -- or, if there are recommendations, that they </div><div>are based on sounder and more substantive reflection and understanding </div><div>than the above ones.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div></div><br></body></html>