<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:12 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><b>GT: </b>You may have a point that the publication date - and more importantly, author awareness of it - could be too unpredictable for authors to depend on it for making a submission to the repository.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div style>Yes.</div><div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT:</b> [But] publication date is not too unpredictable for compliance verification, because otherwise it would be impossible to verify compliance with embargo restrictions.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div style>No. Publication date is indeed too unpredictable for compliance verification. Hence allowable embargo limits will be harder to date and time and verify than immediate-deposit. </div><div style><br>
</div><div style>But your point is...?</div><div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><b>GT:</b> Furthermore, take the following quote from a Springer CTA:<br></div>
<div><br></div>"<i>Furthermore, the author may only post his/her version provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer’s website</i>."</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">So, an author could not post the article to the repository before it appears on Springer's website. So if Hefce did demand that deposit is made at the date of acceptance, then it would be impossible to comply with both Hefce and Springer CTA requirements.<br>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Are you kidding, Graham? (These arguments sound as strained and far-fetched as the OJ Simpson defence-team's arguments!) </div><div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT:</b> No publisher [in that 60%] has ever introduced an embargo where there wasn't one before.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Circular: The publishers that have introduced Finch-inspired embargoes (Alma Swan has been keeping a running list) are -- by definition -- no longer in that 60%!</div>
<div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><b>GT:</b> No publisher would ever introduce or lengthen an embargo. No publisher has ever negotiated agreements with institutions that specify the conditions under which deposits are allowed. And so it is also impossible that a publisher could demand one of those conditions is that the "Button" is removed, or that they can audit all fulfillments of eprint requests via a repository.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Interesting (and very reassuring) assertions. But what on earth makes you believe them?</div><div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT:</b> "Less than one-in-three authors updated the metadata of their arXiv record with a full citation when the article was published."</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>And your point is...? (Mine was about Arxiv authors updating to incorporate changes in the refereed version, not trivia about whether, when and where publication volume, date and pagination details are available or provided.)</div>
<div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>If the publisher's CTA conflicts with Hefce requirements, then you can either comply with one or the other, but not both.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>The HEFCE requirement is immediate-deposit. If the Copyright Transfer Agreement is that OA may be embargoed, then OA is embargoed. HEFCE does not set an allowable embargo-length limit; it merely supports compliance with whatever embargo-length RCUK allows (with an expressed preference for its being as short as possible).</div>
<div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><b>GT:</b> Finch/RCUK policy has fewer restrictions on journal choice than the proposed HEFCE/REF requirements [for immediate deposit upon acceptance].</div><div>[1] Finch/RCUK permits Green OA at no cost</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>[2] Finch/RCUK permits the same embargo limits as HEFCE/REF</div><div>[3] Finch/RCUK does not arbitrarily limit the window in which a Green deposit can be made</div>
<div>[4] Finch/RCUK provides additional funding to generate more immediate OA, without taking it from the institution or author's pocket.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style><br></div><div style>1. Same as HEFCE/REF (but Finch/RCUK prefers and focuses on Gold)</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>2. Same as HEFCE/REF (neither has a mechanism for verifying OA-setting after elapse of allowable embargo)</div><div style><br></div><div style>3. Finch/RCUK has no Green compliance verification mechanism at all</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>4. Finch/RCUK's providing additional funding of Gold is not a "restriction" one way or the other (except on the tax-payer's pocket) -- but (4a) Finch/RCUK's preference to choose Gold over Green is a restriction on authors' choice of journal; (4b) disallowing publishing in journals whose OA embargoes exceed Finch/RCUK's allowable (but not compliance-verified) limits further tightens the restriction on author choice; and (4c) when required to choose Gold after the Finch/RCUK subsidy has been exhausted is indeed a restriction a restriction on "institution or author's pocket."</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>HEFCE/REF has not yet decided whether to require deposit upon acceptance or upon publication. But it is obvious (to all but the OJ Simpson Defence Team!) that the restrictions of Finch/RCUK not only <i>vastly</i> outweigh those of HEFCE/REF, but that some of them have perverse, negative effects. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>More important, HEFCE/REF is the tried and tested mandate that will most effectively, equitably and economically generate OA, by providing a clear, simple mechanism for verifying timely compliance: deposit on the date of acceptance: the only natural and determinate landmark in the author's workflow -- and the earliest point at which providing access to refereed research becomes possible, and necessary, for research progress.<br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div><br></div></div>