[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, David Prosser<david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Hang on, deposit is not an ?arbitrary hoop? that the publisher can jump > through as and when they are bothered. It is a condition of the contract > between the Wellcome and the publisher. If a publisher accepts Wellcome?s > money to make a paper Gold OA then one of the conditions of the contract > between them is that the publisher does the deposit. It is exactly one of > the services that the Gold publisher is being paid to publish (irrespective > of whether or not its part of the definition of Gold OA.). > > You may not agree with the strategy, but let?s not get confused about what > is being paid for. I think I fully understand and understood that, David, and I repeat: it is an arbitrary and counterproductive hoop that the publisher is being paid to jump through, for no good reason whatsoever, and to no genuine advantage, just disadvantage (for the reasons I had been at pains to explain fully in the posting appended below, as well as the posting following it). And, yes, this concerns a short-sighted and unreflective component of Wellcome's strategy -- one that is making the otherwise commendable and historic Wellcome OA mandate not only far less effective than it could be, but providing a dysfunctional model for others to emulate, instead of one that really could scale, systematically, and successfully, globally: The fundee and fundee institution should be required to make the deposit, whether the article be published in a paid-Gold OA journal or a subscription journal. (And the default deposit should be the author's refereed final draft [or better]; and the default locus of deposit should be the author's institutional repository, from which it can then be harvested or imported to further repositories if desired.) And I can only repeat my hope that Wellcome's response may be enlightened enough to fix [this dysfunctional component of Wellcome's policy] at this point (it's easy) rather than (as I fear), just digging in deeper with a 'harrumph' and 'we know what we're doing' and 'mind your own business'..." -- which, I regret to have to say, David, is a lot closer to the spirit of your own response here... Stevan Harnad > ________________________________ > > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum > [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On > Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: 25 June 2009 22:22 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance, and > 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook > > > > There is a very simple fix for the (self-created) problem of "noncompliant" > publishers -- i.e., those who are paid for Gold OA by funders like Wellcome > and then fail to deposit the paid-up article: > > Gold OA fees are paid for Gold OA. That means the publisher makes the > article OA on his own website (and, of course, since all Gold OA journals > are also Green, also endorses immediate Green OA self-archiving by the > author in any repositories he chooses). > > Let us not castigate publishers if they do not immediately also jump through > the arbitrary hoop of further depositing their Gold OA article in some > designated repository or other on behalf of the author or the funder. That > is an extra (and as far as I know, it is not part of the definition of Gold > OA publication, nor the service that the Gold OA publisher is being paid to > provide). > > So if not the publisher, who is at fault if the article is not deposited? > > (I pause to let you reflect a few moments.) > > Well of course the fault is the absurd, again-not-thought-through mandate > requiring fundees to make their articles OA, but relying on a 3rd party > (unfunded by the funder, and merely paid to make the article OA) to do the > deposit! > > Not only does that make no sense at all for Gold OA articles, but it also > makes compliance and grant fulfillment a gratuitously complicated overall > affair, complicated to comply with, even more complicated to monitor > compliance with: http://bit.ly/3oxWHy > > > > For articles published in non-OA journals, the fundee must do the deposit; > for articles published in Gold OA journals (or only those that are paid-OA? > or only those whose paid-OA is paid by the funder?) the publisher must do > the deposit. > > I truly hope that the sensible reader will see at once that the sensible way > for a funder to mandate deposit is to put the onus for compliance eclusively > on the grantee and the grantee's institution, as with all other funding > conditions, not to offload it willy-nilly onto non-grantee 3rd parties > (whose services may be paid for, but who certainly are not being paid for > repository deposit but for Gold OA publishing). > > And while we're at it, this is yet another reason why the default repository > specified by the funder should be the grantee's own institutional repository > and not, again, institution-external repositories. For with local, one-stop > deposit, the institution can collaborate, as usual, in ensuring compliance > with grant fulfillment conditions, by monitoring the deposits in its own > repository, making sure that every grant-funded article has been deposited, > regardless of whether it happens to be published in a Gold or non-Gold > journal. (And, as a bonus, the institution is then also more likely to go on > to adopt an IR deposit mandate of its own, for the rest of its research > output, in all fields, whether or not funded by that funder.) > > Chasing after 3rd parties -- whether publishers or institution-external > repositories -- creates gratuitous complications for absolutely no extra > gain, only needless extra pain. > > Is there any hope at all that funders who have committed to these > dysfunctional and counterproductive stipulations will be enlightened enough > to fix them at this point (it's easy) rather than (as I fear), just digging > in deeper with a "harrumph" and "we know what we're doing" and "mind your > own business"... > > With a sigh of resignation, > > Your weary archivangelist. > > > > PS If you want to find the origin of much of this easily remedied confusion, > look again at that mixed blessing, the well-meaning, timely, > welcome and highly influential -- but relentlessly unreflective -- ebiomed > proposal http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm and its > subsequent incarnations across the years... > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Sally > Morris<sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Isn't it the case that it's only in the case of articles published Open >> Access, and where the fee is paid by Wellcome, that there is any >> requirement >> on the publisher to do the depositing? >> >> Many other journals/publishers have a Wellcome-compliant policy for >> self-archiving of the accepted version, but they are not paid anything nor >> are they required to do anything, as far as I am aware >> >> >> Sally >> >> >> Sally Morris >> >> South House, The Street >> >> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK >> >> Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 >> >> Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 >> >> Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum >> [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On >> Behalf Of Alma Swan >> Sent: 25 June 2009 07:04 >> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org >> Subject: Re: The Beginning of Institutional Repositories >> >> A little bird-in-the-know also told Alma that although 91% of >> Wellcome-funded research is published in journals compliant with the >> Wellcome policy, a major reason for disappointing deposit levels in UKPMC >> in >> the first year of the Wellcome policy (at least) was that the *publishers* >> were not depositing as agreed (and as they were being paid to do). >> >> I daresay they're shaping up by now. >> >> Alma Swan >> Key Perspectives Ltd >> Truro, UK >> >> >> On 24/06/2009 11:01, "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)" >> <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> That's what they told Alma. It is not, however, what they are doing so >> far >>> >>> Sally >>> >>> >>> Sally Morris >>> Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy >>> >>> South House, The Street >>> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK >>> >>> Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 >>> Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 >>> Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum >>> [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On >>> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad >>> Sent: 23 June 2009 14:13 >>> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org >>> Subject: Re: The Beginning of Institutional Repositories >>> >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: >>> >>>> The perceived necessity for institutional and other mandates does, in a >>>> sense, reflect a failing - that researchers simply do not see 'what is >>>> in >>> it >>>> for them' and therefore do not, by and large, deposit voluntarily. What >>>> this tells us is an interesting question >>> >>> It is indeed an interesting question. I think a partial answer is given >>> by Alma Swan's surveys, which showed not only that 95% of researchers >>> would comply with a deposit mandate, but that 81% would do so >>> *willingly*, and only 14% reluctantly. >>> >>> To me, that suggests that researchers are inclined to deposit, but not >>> inclined enough to do so without a mandate from their institutions or >>> funders. >>> >>> The reasons most are *inclined* to do so, yet only a few actually do it >>> without a mandate are multiple. I have identified at least 34 of them: >>> >>> Harnad, S. (2006) Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno's Paralysis, in >>> Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic >>> Aspects, chapter 8. Chandos. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12094/ >>> >>> The three chief worries are about doing so are that (1) it might be >>> illegal, (2) it might put their paper's acceptance for publication by >>> their preferred journals at risk, and (3) it might be time-consuming. >>> >>> These -- and the 31 other worries -- are all groundless, and individual >>> researchers can be successfully informed about this, one by one; but >>> that is not a very practical route to reaching a deposit rate of 100% >>> worldwide. Official institutional and funder mandates reassure >>> researchers >>> that there is nothing to worry about, their institutions and funders >>> back them, everyone is doing it, and, as they quickly learn, the time >>> it takes to deposit it is minuscule. >>> >>> Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2005) Keystroke Economy: A >>> Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-Archiving. >>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/ >>> >>> I am not saying that this fully resolves the puzzle of why it is taking >>> so >>> long to reach the outcome that is so obviously and demonstrably optimal >>> for research and researchers, and fully within reach. We will have to >>> leave that to future historians and sociologists. What is urgent now >>> -- for the sake of research itself, as well as for researchers, their >>> institutions and funders, and the tax-payers that fund the research -- >>> is that this optimal and inevitable outcome should be facilitated and >>> accelerated by mandates, so we reach it at long last. For the longer we >>> delay, the more research impact and progress keeps being lost, >>> needlessly. >>> >>> So full speed ahead with deposit mandates now, and then we can study >>> why it took so long -- and why it needed to be mandated at all -- at >>> our leisure, after we have universal OA. >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>