On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 16:15 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote: [snip] > In backing down on Gold (good), Finch/RCUK, nevertheless failed to > provide any > monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with Green (bad). It only > monitors > how Gold money is spent. > > > Finch/RCUK also backed down on monitoring OA embargoes (which is bad, > but > not as bad as not monitoring and ensuring immediate deposit.)
By "Finch/RCUK" do you mean the current RCUK guidance, because section 3.14 of: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf Is all about monitoring for gold *and green* (including embargoes)? "measure the impact of Open Access across the landscape including use of both immediate publishing (‘Gold’) and the use of repositories(‘Green’), and" "For articles which are not made immediately open access ... a statement of the length of the embargo period [will be required]" I spent last Friday at a workshop of UK EPrints users that was all about how we're going to report open access compliance to RCUK. -- All the best, Tim
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
