> On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake <thom.bl...@york.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hello Stevan, > > HEFCE does not require immediate OA but it does, very reasonably, > expect immediate 'discoverability' on deposit (i.e. acceptance). > This is where the conflict comes in. The 3 months should be enough > time for publication but sadly this isn't always the case.
Nope, it’s deposit of the full-text and “discoverability" of the metadata (Title, author, etc.) on acceptance (+ 3). Nothing whatsoever to do with the Ingelfinger Rule. Difficult to understand how there can be misunderstanding of something so clear and simple. Best wishes, Stevan > > All the best, > Thom > -- > Thom Blake > Research Support Librarian > Information Services > University of York > LFA/215 Harry Fairhurst Building > Heslington, York, YO10 5DD > +44 (0)1904 324170 > ORCID: 0000-0001-5507-9738 > > > Web: www.york.ac.uk/library/info-for/researchers/ > <http://www.york.ac.uk/library/info-for/researchers/> > Email disclaimer: http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm > <http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm> > > On 26 November 2015 at 17:21, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com > <mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > 1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in > conflict with Nature's & Science's PR practices. (N has a 6-month embargo > <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?jtitle=nature&issn=0028-0836&zetocpub=Nature+Publishing+Group&romeopub=Nature+Publishing+Group&fIDnum=%7C&mode=simple&la=en&version=&source=journal&sourceid=4008> > on OA; S has none > <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?jtitle=science&issn=0036-8075&zetocpub=American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science&romeopub=American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science&fIDnum=%7C&mode=simple&la=en&version=&source=journal&sourceid=11114>.) > > 2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for N > & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it is > not). > > 3. This "Ingelfinger Rule <http://cogprints.org/1703/>" (designed to enhance > paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored in the > breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR rather > than substance, especially in the online era. > > SH > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine > <geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk > <mailto:geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk>> wrote: > Danny, > > > > Some journals like to control the way information is being published about > new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another > embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred > to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule>). > > > > All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that > coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors > as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their > paper to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature, or > Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The > downside of course is that they do act as “gagging orders”, which can make it > tricky for researchers to talk about their research once the paper has been > accepted, but not yet published (which can go for weeks/months). > > > > One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a > repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach > such publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much) information about > the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is concerned > about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it, but it > would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional journals such as eLife > have deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage authors > to discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be better > aligned with “open science” principles. > > > > You’ll find more details for the journal you named here > > > > http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html > <http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html> > http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo > <http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo> > http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub > <http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub> > > > and eLife’s policy > > http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife > <http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife> > > > Best wishes > > Geraldine > > > > > > Geraldine Clement-Stoneham > > Knowledge and Information Manager > > Medical Research Council > > Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272 > > Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319 > > geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk > <mailto:geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk> > > > > > > > This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see > http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm > <http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm> > > We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of > documents, unless paper is specifically requested. > _____________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > <http://www.symanteccloud.com/> > ______________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
