<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Danny,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am reminded here of a paper you wrote in 2013 in which you said:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“The requirement to collect information about research output in Australia for ERA [the Australian Excellence in Research for Australia] and HERDC reporting is a double-edged sword. The research community in Australia has adapted to providing this information, albeit not without frustration at the high level of administration involved in compliance. And while some universities consider ERA to have helped the awareness of their repository and open access, overall, the evidence seems to indicate ERA has been detrimental to the promotion of open access in Australia.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/39/122">http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/39/122</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Richard Poynder<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Arthur’s statements are slightly off kilter. The reason why all research outputs in Australia are collected is because of the requirements for the Higher Education Research Data Collection - HERDC <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-research-data-collection" target="_blank">https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-research-data-collection</a> which determines the block grant funding allocation to universities on an annual basis. This has nothing to do with open access.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In some instances universities have tied this long standing process into their OA systems, in others they have not. So there are plenty of situations where a copy of the research output is collected, but it is the final pdf (that in most cases would not be able to be made open access anyway) and these are also collected within an internally facing system, so there is no exposure even of the metadata.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is my understanding that there is movement in Australia to make open access more closely tied into this process at a policy level - but that has not happened yet. As someone managing a large UK institution’s compliance with very serious mandates at the highest level, I can say that we still have a huge battle ahead.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Danny<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>Dr Danny Kingsley<br>Head, Office of Scholarly Communication<br>Cambridge University Library<br>West Road, Cambridge CB39DR<br>P: <a href="tel:+44%201223%20747437" target="_blank">+44 (0) 1223 747 437</a><br>M: <a href="tel:+44%207711%20500564" target="_blank">+44 (0) 7711 500 564</a><br>E: <a href="mailto:dak45@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">dak45@cam.ac.uk</a><br>T: @dannykay68<br>B: <a href="https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/" target="_blank">https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/</a><br>S: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley" target="_blank">http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley</a><br>ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 11 Jan 2017, at 08:02, <a href="mailto:goal-request@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-request@eprints.org</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Send GOAL mailing list submissions to<br><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal@eprints.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br><a href="mailto:goal-request@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-request@eprints.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br><a href="mailto:goal-owner@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-owner@eprints.org</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: OA Overview January 2017 (Arthur Sale)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:38:30 +1100<br>From: "Arthur Sale" <<a href="mailto:ahjs@ozemail.com.au" target="_blank">ahjs@ozemail.com.au</a>><br>Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017<br>To: "'Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)'"<br><<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal@eprints.org</a>><br>Message-ID: <006101d26b92$44c564b0$ce502e10$@<a href="http://ozemail.com.au" target="_blank">ozemail.com.au</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not need the spray.<br><br><br><br>As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all and 100%, for audit purposes. That?s been the case for many years now.<br><br>Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are available within the institution on one server, and the academics all comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer.<br><br>It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada.<br><br><br><br>Best wishes<br><br>Arthur Sale<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>