Hi Arthur, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The statement I was responding to was that gold includes everything you need to audit against (UK) funder compliance and "the same can not be said for Green".
I have no wish to debate the merits of gold vs. green, beyond pointing out that publisher-provided open access is no easier to audit than institution-provided open access. Indeed, if institutions are doing the reporting (as they will in the UK) an OA copy in the repository is easier to report on than a copy held only at the publisher. I don't know where Graham got the idea that gold will make auditing easier. Whether the publisher provides an OA copy or the author, all the points you make apply equally. -- All the best, Tim. On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 08:40 +1100, Arthur Sale wrote: > Tim, you oversimplify the auditing of green. Try this instead, which is more > realistic. > For green, an institution needs to: > > 1) Require the author uploads a file. Timestamp the instant of upload. > > (1A) Check that the file gives a citation of a journal or conference > published article, and that the author is indeed listed as a co-author. You > might assume this, but not for auditing. EPrints can check this. > > (1B) Check that the refereeing policy of the journal or conference complies > with the funder policy. This is absolutely essential. There are non-compliant > examples of journals and conferences. More difficult to do with EPrints, but > possible for most. > > (1C) Check that the file is a version (AM or VoR) of the cited published > article. This requires as a bare minimum checking the author list and the > title from the website metadata, but for rigorous compliance the institution > needs to be able to download the VoR for comparison (ie have a subscription > or equivalent database access). [In Australia we do spot checks, as adequate > to minimize fraud. Somewhat like a police radar speed gun.] [Google Scholar > does similar checks on pdfs it finds.] EPrints probably can't help. > > 2) Make it public after embargo. In other words enforce a compulsory upper > limit on embargos, starting from the date of upload of uncertain provenance > (see 3). EPrints can do this. > > 3) Depending on the importance of dates, check that the upload date of the > file is no later than the publication date. The acceptance date is unknowable > by the institution (usually printed on publication in the VoR, but not > always), and then requires step 1C to determine after the event. Doubtful > that EPrints can do this. > > 4) Require every potential author to certify that they have uploaded every > REF-relevant publication they have produced. Outside EPrints responsibility, > apart from producing lists on demand for certification. > > I just adapted this from your constraints on gold, and common Australian > practice in the ERA and HERDC, which have long been audited. > > Arthur Sale > > -----Original Message----- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > Tim Brody > Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013 8:45 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access > Mandate > > On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 08:05 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Graham Triggs > > <grahamtri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 2) By definition, everything that you require to audit Gold is > > open, baked into the publication process, and independent of > > who is being audited. The same can not be said for Green. > > RCUK and HEFCE will require institutions to report on, respectively, the APC > fund and REF return. > > For gold, an institution needs to: > > 1) Determine whether the journal policy complies with the funder policy. > > 2) Run an internal financial process to budget for and pay out the APC. > > 3) Check whether the item was (i) published (ii) published under the correct > license. > > 4) (For REF) take a copy of the published version. > > For green, an institution needs to: > > 1) Require the author uploads a version. > > 2) Make it public after embargo. > > > So, actually I think green is easier to audit than gold. Even if it were as > you say, it will still be the institution that is tasked with auditing. For > most institutions that will be done through their repository (or > cris-equivalent). It therefore follows that green (Do I have a public copy?) > will be no more difficult than gold (Do I have a publisher CC-BY copy?). > > (Commercial interest - as EPrints we have built tools to make the REF return > and are working on systems to audit gold and green for RCUK > compliance.) > > -- > All the best, > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
