Thanks. I will try well-chosen wording for "respect" and "require".
Shigeki (2012/09/14 20:25), Stevan Harnad wrote: > On 2012-09-14, at 3:00 AM, SUGITA Shigeki wrote: > >> Congratulations on BOAI's new reccomendations! >> >> The Digital Repository Federation (DRF) in Japan >> is now translating it into Japanese and will soon privide it. >> >> I am a member of the translation staff. >> >>> 1.1. Every institution of higher education should have >>> a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all >>> future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited >>> in the institution’s designated repository. (See >>> recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories.) >> >>> University policies should respect faculty freedom to >>> submit new work to the journals of their choice. >> >>> 1.3. Every research funding agency, public or private, >>> should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions >>> of all future scholarly articles reporting funded research >>> are deposited in a suitable repository and made OA as >>> soon as practicable. >> >>> When publishers will not allow OA on the funder’s terms, >>> funder policies should require grantees to seek another publisher. >> >> Feeling a mismatch between these clauses, I am at a loss >> for word selection. I am not so good at English. My misunderstanding? > > You are right to point out this difference in the recommendations > for (1) institutions and for (2) funders. > > Please note that I am replying as one individual co-drafter and > co-signatory. I am not speaking for all of us, nor for the Soros > Foundation. > > The rationale was that there are some factors over which > institutions have more prerogatives than funders, and there > are some factors over which funders have more prerogatives > than institutions. > > (1) Institutions, because they employ researchers to do the > highest quality research can require researchers to publish > their findings in the journals with the highest quality standards. > This can be reflected in how institutions evaluate the research > performance of their researchers, assigning higher weight to > work that has met the standards of journals that have higher > quality standards. > > (Often in practice the quality of a journal is inferred in part > from its average citation count ["impact factor"], which is a > metric that has been much criticized. This is a complicated > and controversial issue. The computation and use of metrics > is currently evolving, partly under the influence of open access > itself.) > > (2) Funders, because they pay for and dictate the conditions > for the grants they award, have slightly different criteria and > prerogatives. They too want research to be of high quality, > but they are also in a position to make public access to > publicly funded research a condition of the funding. And the > larger funding agencies (such as NIH) fund so much research > that they have a sizeable potential influence on journal policy > (e.g., embargo lengths) -- an influence that most individual > institutions do not have. > > Hence funders can, in principle, stipulate that the research > must be made open access, as a contractual obligation > preceding its having been submitted to any journal. As a > consequence, journals would either have to honor this prior > contractual obligation or not accept the work for publication. > > Note that some institutions with a particularly heavy weight > have taken a route somewhat similar to this, notably Harvard > and MIT. Their (Green) open access mandates stipulate that > their authors are contractually bound to make their published > articles open access unless the authors explicitly seek a > waiver from the policy. The Harvard/MIT-style copyright > retention mandate, however, is just one of several differenct > kinds of mandate models or mandate condtions that an > institution might adopt. And, as noted, in general, individual > institutions do not have the weight of research funders in > influencing journal policy. > > So -- and here, although what I've said so far is largely generic, > I am speaking as an individual interpreter of the BOAI10 > recommendations -- the feeling was that BOAI should not > single out which Green OA mandate conditions an institution > should adopt, beyond recommending that deposit should be > immediate, embargoes should be as short as possible, and > re-use rights should be as broad as possible, whereas funders > could also adopt constraints on journal choice other than just > journal importance and quality. > > The unknowns here are researchers themselves, whose needs > vary from discipline to discipline. Some authors, in some fields, > may be happy to exercise their choice of journal in such a way > as to comply with institutional open access policy -- others may > prefer a waiver, in order to publish in the journal they find most > appropriate. > > It is, quite frankly, a conjecture whether a constraint on authors' > journal choice, in the interests of open access, will prove successful > for funder mandates. > > It should accordingly be born in mind that the BOAI > recommendations are just recommendations; that they > vary in their importance, generality and urgency, as > well as in the degree to which they are supported by > prior evidence and experience. > > Recommended constraints by funders on authors' > journal choice fall in this more provisional category. > Not all the co-drafters and co-signatories were equally > sanguine about them. > > Stevan Harnad > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- SUGITA Shigeki <ssug...@office.otaru-uc.ac.jp> Chief, Library and Academic Information Section, Otaru University of Commerce, JAPAN http://barrel.ih.otaru-uc.ac.jp _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
