An immediate-deposit mandate moots most of this discussion. Versions and rights need not be checked if the mandate simply says:
"Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." So all this discussion is about what *else* you can do, and when. Here's a list: 1. A sensible author will make the immediate-deposit OA immediately, just as physicists have been successfully doing for decades with no problems. 2. A cautious author will look up the publsher's embargo policy as well as the funder's embargo limit, and make the immediate-deposit OA at whichever date comes first. 3. A timid author will look up the publsher's embargo policy and make the immediate-deposit OA at whatever date the publisher indicates. 4. A foolish author will simply make the immediate-deposit and leave it as Closed Access (attending to reprint requests generated by the request copy Button on an individual case by case basis). The speed with which we reach 100% Green OA and beyond depends on the relative proportion of foolish, timid, cautious and sensible authors. But please, while we keep speculating, let us all mandate immediate-deposit. I don't mean just: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." Improve on that in any way you like: "and make it OA immediately" "and make it OA immediately or after X months at the latest" But in any case, deposit immediately! Stevan Harnad On 2013-03-21, at 9:40 AM, Hans PfeiffenbergAer <hans.pfeiffenber...@awi.de> wrote: > > Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody: >> By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution >> can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. > wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution > > - may have a copy if the identity of the file submitted or its equivalence > with the version of record can be established > > - may have an OA copy. But to establish that, someone at the institution (the > library?) must check the copyright notice in it (if any) and possibly > consult with the authors about his/her contract with the publisher (because, > legally, something found on the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not > count), ... > > > I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other side as > well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should therefore be stopped. > > Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from being > about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of science. And setting > up of mandates and policies which are the least costly to enforce. Cost to > the admin dept., of course! Where the library, if involved in this, may morph > into a branch of admin. > > How very German! Enjoy! > > > best, > > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > 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
