<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Stevan, </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I guess the record in RoarMap about the policy of the University of Zurich is not correct at that point. The deposition of at least the metadata of a publication in the IR is required to get included in the annual report, which is the foundation of research evaluation. It’s however correct that the distinction of of the accessibility on ZORA (Fulltext freely available or not) is not part of the research evaluation. But I do not know any university that only counts publications that are freely available at the repository.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also counting records where the full text is restricted but only available with a request-a-copy button as Almost-OA on the same level as OA is not valid for me. With „Request a copy“ there’s always a certain chance that you never will get the full text. Especially for older records you cannot expect the author to answer your request, because he/she may already have left the university.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regarding the suggested approach of Jan to charge authors publishing in subscription journals, I think this would be a bad option. Any requirement that tells authors where to publish (even indirectly by imposing charges) will be rejected as a not tolerable influence of the academic freedom. I mean some academics already protesting with this argument, if the university requires them to make their full text available on the IR.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much, is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals. With the free money the library then can create two kind of funds: One is the Gold OA fund (incl. hybrid options but with a cap) and one is the fund for costs resulting getting access to documents that are not longer available via subscription (like costs for pay-per-view, document delivery, individual subscription of a really important journal). I think most libraries would find out that researchers would get along quite well with this option. Because librarians constantly overestimate the importance of their subscriptions and especially the Big Deals where they buy/rent a lot of stuff that is never used by their community. As Thomas mentioned it’s really easy these days to get to the papers by simply asking the author. Also Researchgate and <a href="http://academia.edu" class="">academia.edu</a> close the gap where IRs fail to provide access. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The advantage in this approach is that libraries clearly set the incentive to Gold OA without the need of additional budget. It doesn’t say, don’t publish in subscription journals, it’s just says that subscription is something that isn't supported by default anymore. And changing the default really can make the difference, as there will immediate (Hybrid) Gold OA. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To be honest, I rather have a flip RIGHT NOW with the existing "grotesquely inflated total expenditure“, then going on like this for years where we spend the money anyway to the Closed Access publishers and get nothing in return. It’s not that I’m not concerned about the costs in the Gold OA world. But the current situation is with the subscription business is already so bad, it can’t get worse.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Christian</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">PS: Okay, it can get worse: Paying for Hybrid Gold and keeping the subscriptions like it’s currently done in UK is really not sustainable. But that was clear from the beginning. Maybe it becomes better when offsetting agreements are set in place. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 03.01.2016 um 18:31 schrieb Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" class="">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Penalizing an institution's <i class="">authors</i> for publishing their own articles in subscription journals will not help that institution's <i class="">users</i> gain access to the subscription journal articles of authors <i class="">from all other institutions</i>, hence it will not reduce the institution's subscription budget, just increase the total institutional spend by the author spend. (Hence Jan's is yet another unstable, unscalable solution, the only stable, coherent one being for all authors, at all institutions, to be mandated to <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/" class="">provide Green OA</a>.)<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To assess the effectiveness of the <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/329/" class="">University of Zürich</a> Green OA mandate (which has only one of the <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/" class="">two conditions</a> for the most <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/" class="">effective mandates</a>: immediate deposit is required, but deposit is not a precondition for research evaluation) what needs to be counted is not the annual proportion of OA deposits but the annual proportion of immediate-deposits -- because <a href="https://www.zora.uzh.ch/" class="">Zora</a> implements the automated <a href="http://www.zora.uzh.ch/117835/" class="">Request-a-Copy Button</a> to provide <a href="https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=MUCJVraTOuiM8Qf8hrn4Cw&gws_rd=ssl#q=button+%22almost-OA%22" class="">Almost-OA</a> for embargoed deposits.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Once (effective) immediate-deposit mandates are universal (or almost-universal), it will be universal (or almost-universal) Green OA plus Almost-OA that will make journal subscriptions cancellable at last, thereby not only forcing the publisher downsizing, cost-cutting and conversion to <a href="https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=MUCJVraTOuiM8Qf8hrn4Cw&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+%22fair+gold%22" class="">Fair-Gold OA</a>, but also providing institutions and their authors with the windfall subscription cancelation savings out of which to pay the small remaining fair-gold costs (i.e., just peer review alone) many times over.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A "<a href="https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=MUCJVraTOuiM8Qf8hrn4Cw&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+flip+OA" class="">flip</a>" to today's Fools-Gold, even if it had been possible (which it is not) would simply have flipped today's grotesquely inflated total expenditure from subscription fees to publication fees (before it all flopped the very next day).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(But I have reconciled myself to merely keep pointing the way to the optimal and inevitable outcome without fretting about how long it will take the research community to do the only sensible thing.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Your Zen Archivangelist<br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Velterop <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
I have advocated this for a while now (but am not aware of any
university or library that's taken it up):<br class="">
Charge authors of your university who insist on publishing in a
subscription journal either<br class="">
<ul class="">
<li class="">a nominal amount that is based on an estimate of the average
per-article revenue of subscription journals/publishers (about
$5000), or </li>
<li class="">the actual subscription amount paid by the university to a
publisher, divided by the number of articles by authors from the
university, published in the journals of that publisher.</li>
</ul>
These charges should be collected from the authors' grants, be put
in an open access fund, and then be used by the university/library
to support authors willing to publish in APC-supported open access
journals.<br class="">
<br class="">
(For those who really don't like the 'gold' strategy and favour the
'green' one above all: you could use the open access fund to defray
the cost of your open repositories and of all the effort needed to
ensure that every single paper from your university or institution
is properly and 'findably' deposited.)<br class="">
<br class="">
There will no-doubt be practical difficulties with this, but perhaps
it can be considered as the seed of an approach?<br class="">
<br class="">
Jan Velterop<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">On 03/01/2016 12:39, Christian
Gutknecht wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Well, I think Thomas is right. As long libraries do
not shift money from the subscription side to the Gold OA side,
the transformation will be very very slow.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Take the University of Zurich for example. I’ve just
disclosed for the first time ever what they are paying for
Elsevier, Springer and Wiley and put that in relation with the
institutional publication behavior in this blog post: <a href="http://wisspub.net/2016/01/03/zahlungen-der-universitaet-zuerich/" target="_blank" class=""></a><a href="http://wisspub.net/2016/01/03/zahlungen-der-universitaet-zuerich/" target="_blank" class="">http://wisspub.net/2016/01/03/zahlungen-der-universitaet-zuerich/</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The University of Zurich has a strong mandate since
2008 with probably one of the best staffed OA team (7 persons)
in Europe. But regarding publications from 2014, only 23% (242
out of 1062) from all articles published articles within
journals from Elsevier, Wiley and Springer Journals are freely
accessible via the IR. In 2014 too, the University of Zurich
paid 3.4 Mio CHF/USD to Elsevier, Springer and Wiley only for
Journal subscriptions. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The situation becomes even more absurd, when you
learn that in 2014 there were 176 publications authored by the
University of Zurich that were published by PLOS (which by the
way already is the half of what the University of Zurich
publishes with Wiley!). But there is only little institutional
funding for APCs explicitly limited to humanities. So all
authors who wish publish with PLOS have to throw in additional
money by their own research budget, because the library claims
to have no additional money for large scale Gold OA funding.
Fortunately for the sake of OA, Swiss authors are willing to pay
with the own budget that because the financial situation isn’t
that bad. But think about the chance and the boost for OA, if
the University of Zurich would shift all or at least a part of
the money from the journal subscriptions and create a publisher
neutral Open Access funds.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So I think we can and should promote more Green OA
and care about a better compliance. But if we really want to
speed up the transition to Gold OA we really should consider to
give the subscription money a new purpose and use it in a
coordinated way to force the publishers to change their business
model. And as I heard this was Berlin 12 about.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best regards</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Christian Gutknecht</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Am 31.12.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Stevan Harnad
<<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank" class="">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>>:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas
Krichel <<a href="mailto:krichel@openlib.org" target="_blank" class="">krichel@openlib.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> Stevan Harnad writes<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">1. Actually, no
one really knows why it is taking so long to
reach the<br class="">
optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA
--<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
oh I know. It's because libraries are spending
money on subscriptions.<br class="">
And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That’s about as useful as saying that "I
know why there is poverty:</div>
<div class="">because the rich are rich and the poor are
poor."</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Not only is it not possible to treat
“libraries” as if they were a monolith</div>
<div class="">any more than it is possible to treat
“authors” as a monolith, </div>
<div class="">but it is completely out of the question for
a university library</div>
<div class="">to cancel subscriptions while its users have
no other means to</div>
<div class="">access that content. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">(Please don’t reply that they do cancel what
they cannot afford: that is </div>
<div class="">not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much
content that their users need </div>
<div class="">as they can afford to subscribe to.)</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">The only way to make subscriptions
cancellable is to first mandate </div>
<div class="">and provide (universal — not just local) <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/" target="_blank" class="">Green OA</a>.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">SH</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
GOAL mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank" class="">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank" class="">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<fieldset class=""></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank" class="">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank" class="">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class="">
</font></span></pre><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class="">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">-- <br class="">
<i class="">C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road<br class="">
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW<br class="">
United Kingdom<br class="">
<a href="tel:%2B44%201483%20579525" value="+441483579525" target="_blank" class="">+44 1483 579525</a> (landline)<br class="">
<a href="tel:%2B44%207525%20026991" value="+447525026991" target="_blank" class="">+44 7525 026991</a> (mobile)<br class="">
<br class="">
Noordland 44<br class="">
2548 WB Den Haag<br class="">
The Netherlands<br class="">
<a href="tel:%2B31%20707611166" value="+31707611166" target="_blank" class="">+31 707611166</a></i></div>
</font></span></div>
<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
GOAL mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" class="">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">GOAL mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" class="">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br class="">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>