<div dir="ltr">On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brentier@ulg.ac.be" target="_blank">brentier@ulg.ac.be</a>></span> wrote<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><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="auto"><div></div><div><div>Can Mr. Graf tell us what is the exact mechanism of absolute OA he has set up for his own university (RWTH Aachen, I presume) and to what extent he has been successful ? </div><div>I would be interested to find out whether it could be applied in Liege as well and improve our quest for openness.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br>Le 30 mai 2014 à 21:10, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><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"><i>To count dark deposits for the mandate quote is nothing than cheating.</i></blockquote>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Cheating? The U Liège ORBi Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access mandate requires (1) depositing immediately upon publication and (2) making the deposit OA after the allowable embargo (usually one year) (if there is a publisher OA embargo at all). </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"> <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/" target="_blank">Liège annual deposit rates are over 80%</a> (for ISI-indxed output), about half of it immediate-OA and about half Button-mediated access till the end of the embargo. Most deposits are OA within a year.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Do you suggest not counting compliance with (1), even though it is mandatory?</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">And the relevant point of comparison is either <i>Delayed-Deposit mandates </i>or no mandate at all -- not some ideal that there is no practical way of reaching at this time. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Even if not every author fulfills a Button request, Immediate-Deposit mandates provide exactly the same amount of Delayed OA as Delayed-Deposit mandates, plus all the Button-mediated access that authors provide. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">It might be more constructive to try counting the Button-mediated access that authors actually <i>do</i> provide, not just what they don't. It's all <i>extra access</i>, over and above that provided by Delayed OA mandates -- and, a fortiori, even further over and above that provided by no mandate at all.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><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">Most IRs (including all German) have no mandates...</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Yes, and that's precisely why the Immediate-Deposit mandate and the Button were designed: So that all institutions could at least mandate immediate-deposit with the Button, no matter how long an OA embargo they allowed. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><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">[re U Liège/ORBi] <i>Peer Reviewed with full text (incl. dark deposits): 3147. I have manually counted the first 5 pages (32 dark deposits of 100) and the last 5 (excluding the last page, 42 of 100). If ca. 37 % of the deposits of peer reviewed full text documents in 2009 were dark deposits, this would be 1164 eprints</i>.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I will let Liège/ORBi representatives reply about the specifics of their mandates. The data we have are that over 80% of Liège's annual ISI-indexed output is deposited within 3 months of publication (some of it much earlier), about half of it as immediate OA and half as Button-Mediated Almost-OA. That's already incomparably better than Germany's non-mandates. </div>
<div><br></div><div>My understanding was that embargoed Liège/ORBi deposits are automatically made OA after the embargo elapses. (That is how it is done at Southampton, for example.) If not, it is an easy implementation detail to fix.</div>
<div><br></div><div><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">And concerning <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2268/165664" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/2268/165664</a> which you asked about, the Recto has relied:</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
“C’est un <span style="text-decoration:underline"><b>rapport</b></span> de Dassargues, peut-être financé par une source privée (à vérifier). Dans ce cas, si le financeur de la recherche souhaite garder le rapport confidentiel, c'est son droit, mais l'auteur désire quand même le mentionner puisqu'il a fait le travail et que le résultat de celui-ci est évalué via ORBi... Il doit y avoir d'autres cas du même genre.”</p>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:15px"><br></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)"><b>Translation:</b> “This is a report [not a publication] by Dassargues, perhaps funded by a private source (remains to be verified). In that case, if the research funder wishes to keep the report confidential, that is his right, but the author nevertheless wishes to mention it because he did the work and the university evaluates research performance only via ORBi. There are no doubt other cases like that.”</p>
</div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small">And again: It might be more constructive to try counting the Button-mediated access that authors actually </span><i style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small">do</i><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small"> provide, not just what they don't. It's all extra access, over and above that provided by Delayed OA mandates -- and, a fortiori, even further over and above no mandate at all.</span><br>
</p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small"><br></span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small">And I must repeat, it's all well and good to be dissatisfied with Immediate-Deposit Mandates and the Button, but it might be more informative to respond to my challenge to describe a practical alternative and evidence that it provides at least as much access...</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small"><br></span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small"><b>Stevan Harnad</b></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small"><b><br></b></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>