Hi Arthur In general, I agree with your analysis of the ARC and NHMRC policies on open access - especially the point that Green is seen as the primary route but researchers can, if they wish, use some of their grant to pay for Gold. However, I disagree with your point 4 - that both Councils appear to require the Version of Record. As no specific version is mentioned in the new NHMRC policy and Green is clearly being promoted, I read this as meaning that the Accepted Manuscript version is sufficient.
Paula Callan Queensland University of Technology Sent from my iPad On 25/06/2012, at 6:18 AM, "Arthur Sale" <a...@ozemail.com.au<mailto:a...@ozemail.com.au>> wrote: I thought that it might be useful to document Australia’s official position re funder mandates, and I have been encouraged to post it to GOAL. Australia has two Research Councils. NH&MRC does medical research, ARC handles all the rest. Australian Research Council The ARC explicitly allows grant funds to be used to pay page charges and/or author-side Gold Journal fees. This is the wording of clause 5.2.2 of the 2013 ARC grant application guidelines “5.2. Budget Items Supported” for Discovery Grants (the main kind): “5.2.2 Publication and dissemination of Project outputs and outreach activity costs may be supported at up to two (2) per cent of total ARC funding awarded to the Project, and no prior approval is required; nor does this need to be separately itemised at time of application. This excludes fees for patent application and holding. The ARC strongly encourages publication in publicly accessible outlets and the depositing of data and any publications arising from a Project in an appropriate subject and/or institutional repository.” This clause appears for the first time in the Rules for 2012, without the words in bold and the sentence regarding patent fees. The 2011 guidelines were very different. To be fair, I should also note that clause 13.3.2 “13. Reporting Requirements” states: “13.3.2 The Final Report must justify why any publications from a Project have not been deposited in appropriate repositories within 12 months of publication. The Final Report must outline how data arising from the Project has been made publicly accessible where appropriate.” (2012 and 2013) A similar requirement has been in the guidelines for some time. I have never heard of any audit of compliance with this clause, nor consequences. Note that subject or institutional repositories are acceptable, and the waiver is very broad. The twelve months almost certainly does not derive from publisher pressure, but from the fact that Australian universities have a long-standing annual publication reporting requirement (HERDC = Higher Education Research Data Collection) due at EOY and submitted in Feb/Mar of the following year, so this requirement just dovetails with the returns already made annually. National Health & Medical Research Council The NH&MRC is more opaque. Its funding rules for 2013 state (Appendix B, linked pdf on DIRECT RESEARCH COSTS): “Note1.: Publications costs cannot be requested on an application but may be listed as a legitimate cost against DRCs as part of the financial acquittal process.” On the other hand its dissemination policy is explicit (2013): “12.2 Dissemination of Scientific Findings To maximise the benefits from research and as broadly as possible allow access by other researchers investigators and the wider community, NHMRC encourages investigators and Administering Institutions to • Promote responsible publication and dissemination of the research findings; • Disseminate all research findings; and • Disclose research support accurately. Section 4 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, outlines these and other responsibilities of Institutions and Investigators, which apply to all forms of dissemination. This document is available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/r39. NHMRC strongly supports investigators depositing their data and any publications arising from a research project in an appropriate subject and/or institutional repository wherever such a repository is available to the investigator(s). Any research outputs that have been or will be deposited in appropriate repositories should be identified in the Final Report. Grant recipients must ensure that they comply with NHMRC policy on the dissemination of research findings, which is available at:http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/policy/dissemination-research-findings.” The second link leads to the new policy which comes into effect on 1 July 2012: “The revised policy states that: ‘The Australian Government makes a major investment in research to support its essential role in improving the wellbeing of our society. To maximise the benefits from research, publications resulting from research activities must be disseminated as broadly as possible to allow access by other researchers and the wider community. NHMRC acknowledges that researchers take into account a wide range of factors in deciding on the best outlets for publications arising from their research. Such considerations include the status and reputation of a journal, book, publisher or conference, the peer review process of evaluating their research outputs, access by other stakeholders to their work, the likely impact of their work on users of research and the further dissemination and production of knowledge. Taking heed of these considerations, NHMRC wants to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the research supported by NHMRC funding, in the most effective manner and at the earliest opportunity. NHMRC therefore requires that any publications arising from an NHMRC supported research project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within a twelve month period from the date of publication.’ NHMRC understands that some researchers may not be able to meet the new requirements initially because of current legal or contractual obligations. The support material being developed by NHMRC will provide further guidance on this and other scenarios.” The key sentences are the last three which I have shown in red. Although it is not explicitly stated, the NH&MRC clearly expects that deposited applications will not be restricted, but must be open access. The Request-a-Copy button and the Accepted Manuscript (ID/OA) are not mentioned. The rules will however invalidate the ability of authors and publishers to make legal blanket copyright transfers. Analysis The above is all fact, but what follows is my opinion and analysis. 1 Both the ARC and the NH&MRC support Green deposit, but they also allow grant funds to be used for author-side Gold fees. 2 The NH&MRC strongly mandates the Green Road (irrespective of whether the publication appears in a Gold OA journal or not). All Australian universities have OA repositories. The NH&MRC mandate is a major step forward. 3 No-one should have angst about the twelve month deposit period of either research council (as compared to six months), because even if there was some publisher influence, it is geared to the annual HERDC reporting cycle, which requires that every publication produced in the previous calendar year be reported to the Government in Feb/March. In practice at least half the researchers and probably more put their citations into the database as soon as they are published, resulting in a steady stream of uploads, and only a minor flurry of activity at the EOY. I expect this to generalize to VoR upload easily. Uploading of citations is usually done by administrative staff (initiated by data provided by academics), and is subject to Government audit for accuracy of claims. The admin staff harry the academics. 4 There are grounds for concern that the deposit (for both councils) appears to require the Version of Record, and not the Accepted Manuscript (the ID/OA path). 5 Universities will probably feel somewhat aggrieved that they have to respond to the NH&MRC mandate and that it only applies to a subset of staff. However, this may be ameliorated since only the Faculty of Health Sciences (or equivalent) is affected (and possibly Psychology), so their work to enforce the NH&MRC mandate is limited. The easy solution is of course for the University to interpose a stronger institution-wide mandate, as for example at Macquarie University and the Queensland University of Technology. There is an opportunity here for Australian activists. 6 Gold outlets are supported, but Green is seen as the prime route. In the case of NH&MRC, one cannot argue with their policy as there is a Green mandate backing up the possible Gold expenditure. The ARC is the backslider, the outgoing CEO believing that the general public (including industry) are not interested in the research it funds. Not a supportable position. 7 I cannot see Australia as supporting a bizarre notion such as the Finch report appears to be. There is no stomach to use our research funds to support the publishing industry through a transition. We will follow whatever happens... Arthur Sale Emeritus Professor of Computer Science University of Tasmania _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
