Many thanks for the very welcome and useful data about Green OA policy and practise in Australia.
To measure compliance with the immediate-deposit requirement, the following would provide an *estimate*: 1. Require immediate deposit of the dated letter of acceptance. 2. Require immediate deposit of the accepted final draft. (You and I know that the publisher's PDF-of-record is superfluous for OA.) 3. Retrieve the institution's published output from WoS monthly (it is updated about monthly) or from SCOPUS via institution-name search 4. Check (via software) each title for whether and when it is deposited (deposit date) 5. Compare deposit date with dated acceptance date. 6. Calculate percentage of monthly output that is deposited, as well as the latency (timing) of the deposit relative to the acceptance date. 7. Calculate proportion and length of OA embargo on deposits 8. Calculate the volume of Request-Button traffic for embargoed deposits (requests, compliances, latencies) No, this is not too complicated nor too demanding (as everyone will of course cry). It's exactly the simple, natural compliance monitoring system that needs to be put into place in order to establish a natural long-term practice, one that ensures that immediate Green OA is always provided. Of course, the institutions and funders need to stand firm on the carrots/sticks: Non-compliance should have consequences. It doesn't take much, because the policy does not ask for much. Once it's a reliable and universal habit, the checks and stats can become less frequent. On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Let me summarize what I know Stevan. > > > > · All Australian universities (even privately-funded ones) can > get federal research grants. As part of the eligibility requirements, all > publicly-funded research has to be collected by each university’s Research > Office and made available for federal audit. In all cases, I believe that > this means deposit of the articles in an Internet-connected server. > Quaintly, we call such objects RODAs (Research Output Digital Assets)! > > · To answer question 1, I do not know. We do at the University of > Tasmania as you would expect (see http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ > ecite/q/ecite_home) but I don’t survey all the others regularly as I used > to do. I would expect about 30-50%. > > · Are the repositories registered in ROARMAP? Again, I don’t > know. However, I will do a post to the Australian OA discussion group (and > copy this email to it). > > · You did not ask, but are they included in the BASE search > engine? I think my university is, but again, this is a question for each > university. As you know they are obstinate and lazy beasts. > > · In the acquittal of each research grant (the final report), the > recipients are supposed to document whether the RODAs were made open > access, and if not to explain why not. I do not know whether this is > complied with or enforced. > > · As far as I know there are no aggregated statistics. Each > university does its own thing. > > > > I attribute this state to (a) you, me and all the other great OA advocates > who have joined the debate over the years, and (b) savvy leaders of our two > Australian research councils, and now including the Chief Scientist who > advises the Prime Minister. We run a community oa email group, but it is > not over-active. > > > > I don’t know about aggregated compliance statistics, and indeed I do not > see how easy it would be to measure them. The question is ‘how do you > measure the whole output to compare with the deposited?’ when everything is > supposed to be deposited? Please have a look at > http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_about, > > > > Best wishes > > Arthur Sale > > > > *From:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@ > JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* Thursday, 12 January 2017 02:06 AM > *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 > > > > > > Dear Arthur, > > > > Thanks for the kind words, and congratulations on 100% self-archiving in > Australia! (I had no idea!) > > > > Although my comment was posted at the point of your contribution to the > thread, I was not actually responding to you, but to various points made in > the thread. I know we agree. > > > > But I do have two questions: > > > > (1) Do the Australian universities use your (our) Button during the OA > embargo? > > > > (2) Are the Australian mandates registered in ROARMAP? (They need to be > known to be amulated.) > > > > (3) Are the compliance statistics available? > > > > Best wishes, > > Stevan > > > > Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open > Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button > <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: > Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, > Eds.) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the > double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value > in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not > need the spray. > > > > As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all > Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes > *all* and *100%*, for audit purposes. That’s been the case for many years > now. > > Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are > available within the institution on one server, and the academics *all* > comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer. > > It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think > outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps > that we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are > ICT-savvy and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada. > > > > Best wishes > > Arthur Sale > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 January 2017 06:05 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* scholc...@lists.ala.org; jisc-repositories > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 > > > > Not to put too fine a point on it (and this reminds me why I've tired of > the fray): > > > > If double-payment for subscriptions (first pay for the research, then pay > again to buy it "back") had been a valid argument against having to pay for > subscriptions, *it would have applied to books too, just as to journals*: > "Why should institutions pay the cost of researching and writing their > books, only to have to buy them "back"?* Answer*: because books, unlike > journal articles, are *not author give-aways*, written solely for usage, > > uptake and impact. Books are also written for (potential) royalties (and > there might possibly still be some added value in producing and purchasing > a hard copy). > > > > If the double-payment argument is not valid for books, then it's not valid > for peer-reviewed journal articles either. (And this is true no matter what > perspective one takes on the "double-payment": the institution, the funder, > the funder's funder (the tax-payer) or the whole planet.) > > > > The valid argument is that *peer-reviewed journal articles are give-away > research*: No one should have to pay for access to it, neither its author > nor its users. The only thing still worth paying for in the OA era is the > peer review (Fair-Gold OA). > > > > (Preservation is a red herring in this context. So is "journal impact > factor.") > > > > No lengthy "re-education" program for scholars is needed to enlighten them > that they should self-archive all their papers. The message is too simple > (and over 20 years seems more than enough for any scholarly "re-education" > progamme!) If the diagnosis of laziness, timidity or stupidity does not > explain why they don't self-archive, find another descriptor. It's > happening, but it's happening far too slowly. And institutional (and > funder) self-archiving (Green OA) mandates still look like the only means > of accelerating it (and forcing publishers journals to downsize and convert > to Fair Gold). (Paying instead pre-emptively for Fool's Gold is > unaffordable, unsustainable and unnecessary -- and that's the real > double-payment.) > > > > *Stevan Harnad* > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > This is angels dancing on the point of a pin!. > > Universities subscribe to journals or buy books to either (a) get other > people’s research outputs, or (b) to acquire a canonic authorized version > of their own research in print. Yes, it sounds silly, but librarians value > preservation. > > If a subscription gives you back some of what you’ve already got, well who > cares? Not the author, nor the institution, nor the publisher. I often get > freebies that I don’t need, but that does not invalidate my original > purchase, nor reduce its value to me. > > > > Arthur Sale > > Also tilling other fields, but not asleep either. Think functionally! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Arthur Sale PhD* > > Emeritus Professor of Computer Science > > School of Engineering and ICT | Faculty of Science, Engineering and > Technology > > University of Tasmania > > Private Bag 65 > > HOBART TASMANIA 7001 > > M +61 4 1947 1331 > > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-8035 > > > > [image: cid:CA66235E-F79F-4ECD-A612-0376BD33B152] > > CRICOS 00586B > > > > *From:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@ > JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* Monday, 9 January 2017 23:14 PM > *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > *Subject:* Re: OA Overview January 2017 > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:30 AM, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > *SH:* (2) No, the institution that pays for the research output is not > paying a second time to buy it back. Institutional journal subscriptions > are not for buying back their own research output. They already have their > own research output. They are buying *in* the research output of *other* > institutions, > and of other countries, with their journal subscriptions. So no > double-payment there, even if you reckon it at the funder- or the > tax-payer-level instead of the level of the institution that pays for the > subscription. > > > > *DP:* So, when UCL (say) purchases access to Elsevier articles through > ScienceDIrect (say) Elsevier removes all of the UCL articles from the > bundle and prices accordingly? Of course not. The institution is > purchasing articles by researchers across the world’s, *including* its > own. > > > > To repeat: UCL (and everyone) has their own article output. Getting access > to their own article output is not why researchers publish, nor why > institutions subscribe to journals. It is to get access to the articles of > others. > > > > So that version of the simplistic double-payment plaint is, and remains, > invalid. (And it, and its (il)logic predates OA by at least a decade. > > > > *DP:* SBut I agree with (12) > > > > But (12) is about OA, not the old double-payment argument against > subscriptions (which, by the way, if it had been valid would also have > applied to royalty-based output, including the institutional purchase of > books by its own authors!). The essence of the case for OA is and has > always been that (refereed) research is an author *giveaway*, written > only for researcher uptake, usage and impact, not for royalty revenue. We > keep forgetting this, with this misleading notion of "double-payment" (for > subscription access). > > > > There is certainly double-payment in the case of OA (subscription plus > Fool's Gold publication fees) as well as double-dipping (in the case of > hybrid Fool's Gold). But that is not at all the kind of double-payment that > the old argument against subscriptions was (and is) about. > > > > Stevan Harnad (tilling other fields, but not asleep) > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
