[GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster
Dear Richard, Here are the answers: 1. ORBi, the Liège University Repository, will soon (I believe) reach 90% compliance. It is our target for 2014 and I hope we make it. This figure comes from the calculation of the percentage of ULg papers that can be found in Web of Science and/or in Scopus that are deposited in ORBi as well (see method in http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/) It concerns one year at a time and it is not cumulative. Last May, the compliance level for the publications of 2013 was already 73% and our figure for 2012 is in the 80% range. 2. Only a small proportion of ULg papers are in CC-BY. This is simply because, in order to publish in the journal of their choice (I haven’t tried to do anything against that!), our authors, in the great centuries-old tradition, give away their rights to the publisher. We have no control on that. Later on, there is no way for them to CC-BY the same text (in fact, we are preparing ORBi 2.0, that will offer a CC-BY choice). For now, we are aiming at free access and we are not yet fighting hard for re-use rights. We shall move progressively in this direction of course, while the publishing mores evolve… In other words, I agree that we have free access, not a full fledge open access yet. It is not a failure, it is our objective to gain confidence first. Unfortunately, even if we have established in-house rules for evaluation, external evaluations are still based on traditional indicators such as the highly and rightfully criticized but widely used Impact Factor and the like. In these conditions, today we cannot sacrifice our researchers — singularly the young ones — in the overall competition for jobs and funds, on the altar of « pure » Open Access. Best wishes Bernard Rentier Rector, University of Liège, Belgium Le 19 sept. 2014 à 21:52, Richard Poynder a écrit : > Dear Bernard, > > I have two questions if I may: > > 1. You say that Liège is getting close to 90% compliance. Can you > explain how you know that, and how you calculate compliance levels? I ask > this because the consistent theme coming through from UK universities with > regard to compliance to the RCUK OA mandate is that they simply do not know > how many research outputs their faculty produce each year. If that is right, > what systems does Liège have in place to enable it to produce a comprehensive > list of research outputs that UK universities apparently do not have? > > 2. Does Liège track the licences attached to the deposits in its > repository? If so, can you provide some stats, especially the number of items > that are available CC-BY (which we are now told is required before a deposit > can be characterised as being open access? > > Thank you. > > > Richard Poynder > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > brent...@ulg.ac.be > Sent: 19 September 2014 18:46 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster > > "Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into the > local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess > performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions." (JC. > Guédon) > > > Oh no, Jean-Claude, Liège mandates everything. > It is a real mandate and it took me a while to get almost every ULg > researcher to realise that it is to his/her benefit. > Linking the deposits to personal in-house assessment was the trick to get the > mandate enforced in the first place. As well as a few positive incentives and > a lot of time consuming persuasion (but it was well worth it). > Last Wednesday, the Liège University Board has put an ultimate touch of > wisdom on its mandate by adding "immediately upon acceptance, even in > restricted access" in the official procedure. Actually, a nice but to some > extent useless addition because, with time (the mandate was imposed in 2007), > ULg authors have become so convinced of the increase in readership and > citations that two thirds of them make their deposits between the date of > acceptance and the date of publication. > All this explains why we are getting close to 90% compliance, an outstanding > result, I believe. > > > > > Le 18 sept. 2014 à 23:40, Jean-Claude Guédon > a écrit : > > A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive tsunami > mode... > > 1. Stevan admits that his evaluation of compliance is an approximation, easy > to get, but not easy to correct. This approximation varies greatly from one > institution to another, one circumstance to another. For example, he admits > that language plays a role; he should further admit that the
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
To answer Alicia Wise's query, 6 proposals of positive things from publishers that should be encouraged : 1. Allow systematically and under no condition and at no cost depositing the peer-reviewed postprint â either the author's refereed, revised final draft or â even better for the Publishers publicity â the publisher's version of record in the author's institutional repository. 2. Remove from authors' contracts the need to sign away their rights and transform it into a "non exclusive license" of their rights. 3. Agree that by default, part of the rights on an article belong to the author's Institution if public and/or to the Funding organization, if public. 4. Reduce significantly (or at least freeze for 5 years) the purchasing cost of periodicals, then increase at the real inflation rate, officially measured in Western countries (1-3 % per year). 5. Reduce significantly the number of periodical titles published, aiming for excellence and getting rid of the mediocre title which are bundled in Elsevier's "Big Deals" and similar "deals" by other publishers. This would reduce their monopolistic position. 6. Reward Institutions for the work provided by reviewers, editors and⦠authors, either directly or indirectly through lower subscription costs. Bernard Rentier [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
To answer Alicia Wise's query, 6 proposals of positive things from publishers that should be encouraged : Allow systematically and under no condition and at no cost depositing the peer-reviewed postprint – either the author's refereed, revised final draft or — even better for the Publishers publicity — the publisher's version of record in the author's institutional repository. Remove from authors' contracts the need to sign away their rights and transform it into a "non exclusive license" of their rights. Agree that by default, part of the rights on an article belong to the author's Institution if public and/or to the Funding organization, if public. Reduce significantly (or at least freeze for 5 years) the purchasing cost of periodicals, then increase at the real inflation rate, officially measured in Western countries (1-3 % per year). Reduce significantly the number of periodical titles published, aiming for excellence and getting rid of the mediocre title which are bundled in Elsevier's "Big Deals" and similar "deals" by other publishers. This would reduce their monopolistic position. Reward Institutions for the work provided by reviewers, editors and… authors, either directly or indirectly through lower subscription costs. Bernard Rentier___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: The affordability problem vs. the accessibility problem
And it is very easy to achieve. But only by University authorities. All it takes is a few minutes of political courage and let their research community know that any author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft of any refereed journal article that is not in the Institutional Repository will be disregarded in any performance assessment within the University. It works. But it takes not just authority. It takes also a lot of preparation, information and incentives to convince everyone, because it works best if everybody understands that it is for their own good, for their own interest, and not only for the University's visibility. This is precisely why we created EOS (Enabling Open Scholarship; http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/j_6/accueil ), to convince Heads of Universities to jump that leap. Bernard Rentier Le 6 nov. 2011 à 18:51, Stevan Harnad a écrit : On Sun, 6 Nov 2011, Allen Kleiman wrote: > Is there a difference between 'access to information 'and 'access to the > publishers copy'? Yes, a lot: (1) "Information" can mean any information: published, confidential, public, royalty-seeking, non-royalty-seeking, author give-away, non-author-giveaway. (2) The primary target information of the OA movement is refereed research journal articles, all of which, without exception, are written exclusively for research uptake, usage and impact, not for royalty revenues. (3) The restrictions (embargoes) that publishers place on OA self-archiving of the author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft are far fewer than the restrictions on the publisher's version-or-record. (The publishers of over 60% of journals, including almost all the top journals in each field, already endorse OA self-archiving of the author's final draft -- but not the publisher's version-of-record -- immediately upon publication. These are called "green" publishers, and OA self-archiving is called "green OA.") The OA movement is not -- and cannot be -- the movement for open access to all "information." It is the movement for open access to refereed research journal articles. The author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft is the refereed journal article. Access to the author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft of a refereed journal article is the difference between night and day for all would-be users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access to the publisher's version of record. This is why the first and most urgent priority of the OA movement is to ensure that all research institutions and funders mandate (require) the deposit of the author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft of every refereed journal article in their institutional repository immediately upon publication (with access to the deposit immediately set as Open Access for at least 60% of the deposits from green journals, and the repository's semi-automated "email eprint request" Button providing "Almost OA" to the remaining 40% for individuals requesting access for research purposes.semi-automatically with two key-presses, at the discretion of the author). Stevan Harnad
Re: The numbers - Re: [BOAI] Success of U Liege Mandate Linked to Performance Assessment
Talking about censorship and personal attacks, I find it difficult to read Mr. Graf's endless accusations. Obviously, he and I (and many people) have a different understanding of the word "worthless". If he finds the Liege deposit ORBi "worthless", with 42,524 references in 18 months, 25,791 of which in full text and 12,043 in open access (the others being available through a digital copy request) is not worthless. This is not 100% OA, of course, but it is a great progress in that direction. In additions, it serves very usefully the University's ambition to increase significantly the visibility of its scientist's publications. My own old ones have unexpectedly found a second life there. I deeply regret Mr Graf's sense of debating, which is uselessly aggressive, as always. It is also very biased, just as the examples he is presenting from ORBi. One important piece of information is that full text is mandatory for deposit only for publications (articles) since 2002. It is quite understandable why researchers bother less often about digging out their old papers. I am impressed by the Forum moderator's patience... I am sure he realizes that Mr Graf's outrageous postings do not serve the cause of OA, of course, but also jeopardize the Forum credibility. His role as moderator is also to make sure there is no such drift in language and behavior. If anyone can have such ruthless expression and be published on the Forum, what is moderation all about ? I share David Prosser's opinion that Mr Graf should open his own list. He will be debating with himself and leave the American Scientist Open Access Forum go on with peaceful discussions (by the way, it appears that he runs a blog, and that he uses it for fighting his usual nemesis: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6339908/). I shall end by saying that I am not ready to spend more time reacting to Mr Graf's aggressions. It is the second time and hopefully the last. Bernard Rentier Chairman, EOS Rector, ULg, Belgium Le 2 juin 2010 à 19:41, Klaus Graf a écrit : > 2010/6/2 Stevan Harnad : > >> [With some misgivings, I approved Dr. Graf's earlier posting referring to >> "liar," and now this one referring to "evil," but I remind Dr. Graf that the >> patience of this Forum's readership for his habitual rudeness is wearing >> mighty thin by now, and temperateness would be advisable if he wishes to >> have further postings approved.] > > I do not appreciate censorship and personal attacks. Mr. Harnad is > misusing his authority as list moderator for both things. May I > remember at > > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6339908/ > > I would like to see a not-Harnad-censored list discussing OA problems > with free speech. > > BTW: From the first 19 of the 49 2008 ORBI deposits in the field of > History have only 2 OA full text, and under the journal articles with > request-button is one in a (non-peer-reviewed) OA journal > (literaturkritik.de)! > > Klaus Graf
Re: Is Harvard's OA Policy pure bragging?
Censorship is needed against insults. An accusation of bragging is insulting. This forum should remain a place where well educated people exchange their thoughts, not a boxing ring. B. Rentier Le 22 mars 2010 à 12:06, Klaus Graf a écrit : > As you know it's pure censorship what you are doing. As moderator you > have to be neutral but it is clear that you are misusing your > administrative power regarding postings you don't like. > > I am not professor. > > Klaus Graf > > 2010/3/22 Stevan Harnad : >> On 20-Mar-10, at 9:57 PM, Klaus Graf wrote: >> >>> A short update on the Knoll case: >>> >>> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6250326/ >>> >>> Klaus Graf >> >> For Prof. Shieber's remarkably patient and polite reply to Prof. >> Graf's prior posting along much the same lines, see >> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5918219/ >> (I think Prof. Shieber's reply pretty much covers Prof. Graf.'s latest >> installment too.) >> >> There are constructive criticisms one might make of some of the >> current implementational details of Harvard's policy -- >> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html >> -- but certainly not the way Prof. Graf goes about it; moreover, >> chances are that Prof. Graf would continue in much the same tone even >> once those implementational details were fixed, since they are not the >> target of his criticism. >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> P.S. I think I made a judgment error, as moderator, in approving Prof. >> Graf's subject header, as well as the pointer to his comment on his >> website. Let this be taken as notice that as of now, no subject >> headers like the above one will be approved for posting in this Forum; >> nor will postings, even with temperate headings, if they merely point >> to intemperate postings elsewhere, as the above one does. >> >
Re: Is Harvard's OA Policy pure bragging?
Indeed, Mr Graf's recurrent, outrageous, aggressive and above all useless comments are becoming very tiring on this Forum. Freedom of expression is a cherished value and should be preserved. However I am impressed with the moderator's patience: there are definitely some contributions that should be "moderated". Bernard Rentier Le 22 mars 2010 à 03:38, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > On 20-Mar-10, at 9:57 PM, Klaus Graf wrote: > >> A short update on the Knoll case: >> >> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6250326/ >> >> Klaus Graf > > For Prof. Shieber's remarkably patient and polite reply to Prof. > Graf's prior posting along much the same lines, see > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5918219/ > (I think Prof. Shieber's reply pretty much covers Prof. Graf.'s latest > installment too.) > > There are constructive criticisms one might make of some of the > current implementational details of Harvard's policy -- > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html > -- but certainly not the way Prof. Graf goes about it; moreover, > chances are that Prof. Graf would continue in much the same tone even > once those implementational details were fixed, since they are not the > target of his criticism. > > Stevan Harnad > > P.S. I think I made a judgment error, as moderator, in approving Prof. > Graf's subject header, as well as the pointer to his comment on his > website. Let this be taken as notice that as of now, no subject > headers like the above one will be approved for posting in this Forum; > nor will postings, even with temperate headings, if they merely point > to intemperate postings elsewhere, as the above one does. >
Launch of EOS
After a missed launch a few weeks ago, an organisation that will be of interest to all rectors and vice-rectors-for-research is now ready to take off. Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) LAUNCHES NEW ORGANISATION FOR INSTITUTIONAL DIRECTORS WORLDWIDE Liege, Belgium 23 September 2009 ~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W ENABLING OPEN SCHOLARSHIP (EOS), a new organisation for senior management in universities and research institutions, has been launched today. The context in which EOS has been established is that of increasing interest from governments, funders and the research community itself in opening up the way research is carried out and communicated. This interest is complemented by new research practices and processes that can work effectively only in an open, collaborative environment. As we rapidly approach 100 formal, mandatory, policies on Open Access from universities, research institutes and research funders a group of senior directors of universities and research institutes have come together to launch a new forum for the promotion of the principles and practices of open scholarship. The aim of Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) is to further the opening up of scholarship and research that we are now seeing as a natural part of ~Qbig science~R and through the growing interest from the research community in open access, open education, open science and open innovation. These, and other, 'open' approaches to scholarship are changing the way research and learning are done and will be performed in the future. Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) provides the higher education and research sectors around the world with information on developments and with advice and guidance on implementing policies and processes that encourage the opening up of scholarship. It also provides a forum for discussion and debate amongst its members and will be taking that discussion into the wider community. EOS membership is for senior institutional managers who have an interest in ~W and wish to help develop thinking on ~W strategies for promoting open scholarship to the academy as a whole and to society at large. The EOS website is a resource open to all. It provides background information, data and guidance material on open scholarship-related issues. In a limited access area, members can find announcements, news and discussions. EOS offers an outreach service to universities and research institutes ~W whether members or not ~W that need help, advice, guidance or information on open scholarship issues. We do this through our website and also by providing information on an individual basis to institutions that need it. The EOS board is composed of people who have personally designed or instigated the kinds of changes in their own institutions that herald the benefits of the open scholarly communication system of the future. Now this expertise is available for others to tap into. The current EOS board comprises: ~U Bernard RENTIER (Chairman), Rector of the University of Liege, Belgium ~U Tom COCHRANE, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia ~U William DAR, Director General of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, India ~U Stevan HARNAD, Canada Research Chair, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montreal, Quebec ~U Keith JEFFERY, Director of IT and International Strategy at the Science & Technology Facilities Council, Swindon, UK ~U Sijbolt NOORDA, President of VSNU, the Association of Dutch Research Universities ~U Stuart SHIEBER, James O. Welch, Jr. and Virginia B. Welch Professor of Computer Science in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University and Director of Harvard~Rs Office of Scholarly Communication ~U Ian SIMPSON, Deputy Principal for Research and Knowledge Transfer, and Professor of Environmental Science, University of Stirling, UK ~U Peter SUBER, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA ~U John WILLINSKY, Khosla Family Professor of Education at Stanford University and director of the Public Knowledge Project at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, USA ~U Alma SWAN (Convenor/Coordinateur), Director of Key Perspectives Ltd, Truro, UK ~SThe world of research is changing and universities and other research-based institutions must drive the change, not sit back and let it happen. Having embarked upon implementing changes in thinking and practice at my own university, I want to encourage others in my position to join the discussion and help lead the way to a better future,~T said Professor Bernard Rentier. ~SWe will be reaching out to universities and research institutes across the world to invite them to play an active role in building better systems of scholarship for the future. EOS will provide the forum and the voice for the research community on open scholarship issues and
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
I am quite bemused by the direction that this discussion seems to be taking in the minds of some! En cas de doute, I am not the apostle of some sect preaching a "compulsory open society" -- just trying to apply common sense toward achieving (1) broad and rapid external dissemination of my university's researchers' output and (much less important) (2) a full internal registry of the research done and published at our University. That's all. We have the tools to do it. Let's not rack our brains trying to find far-fetched pretexts for protecting researchers from having a small extra chore to do once in a while! One can always find mind-bending reasons to avoid facing the burden of filing data. Please just say "it is too tedious and we don't want to do it". Don't invoke academic freedom and don't misquote poor Socrates: His thoughts were miles above these banal concerns. Personally, I shall be pursuing my goal and I shall lead my university into the group of those who will have achieved full exposure of what they are producing, even if it takes a mandate to achieve it. My university receives sizeable amounts of funding to perform two functions: (1) teaching/training, which is already measurable, and (2) research, its extent currently known only sketchily, even in-house; I would like to have all this productivity up front. There is nothing wrong, either legally or morally, in any of this. Rather, it is morally remiss not to have any of this, and I am convinced it is all for the benefit of my academic community. Bernard Rentier Le 09-févr.-09 à 21:56, Tomasz Neugebauer a écrit : > As to the need to fulfill multiple objectives: > 1) University repositories with all the publications by their employees, > 2) funders repositories with all the publications they have funded and > 3) thematic repositories of researchers' choice; > > Bernard Rentier argues that > > "One cannot reasonably hope that all researchers will fulfill all these > objectives. There is only one way to get close to it while minimising the > efforts for the author: make the institutional repository the primary > deposit locus and set up an easy mechanism for harvesting the data in > other loci." > > In other words, there is an ideal: that of "100% OA", a global benefit, a > collective good. First, I do not think that there is a universal agreement > about the meaning of "open access" - the debate about the meaning of this > will continue, in my opinion, indefinitely. Even if a researcher agrees > that such a collective good exists, it does not follow from this that he > has a responsibility to act to strive towards it - that requires altruism > and individual decision on their part. My point is that an argument based > on the existence of some ideal collective good in the minds of > institutional administrators is insufficient for a mandate to change the > current deposit practices of researchers. > > Imre Simon wrote, > "Still on this topic, there are also the mandates which have been voted on > by the Faculty, like the Harvard FAS mandate, which dampens quite a lot > the compulsory adjective and which is, in my opinion, the more correct way > of establishing a mandate." > I agree that this is the preferable way to proceed - the faculty and > researchers need to be involved in their own institutions - otherwise you > get a few wise and visionary 'philosopher kings' who are mandating a > change of behavior based on a vision that only they understand. One of > the paradoxes of freedom is that a democracy can lead to sub-optimal > results (like the current 15% OA figures), it can even result in the > election of someone who dissolves democracy and installs themselves as a > tyrant. > > A granting agency can make open access to the results of the research a > condition of funding, but a university mandate that makes the university > IR the compulsory locus of deposit, handed down to the faculty as a higher > wisdom in the name of "100% OA" that only the administration understands > is not a good idea. An appeal to individualism of the researchers should > be sufficient: open access in an IR is an excellent service to faculty to > promote their research, there is little reason for faculty not to > participate. An appeal to altruism is also good: make it easier for > others to access their research. However, the argument for collectivism: > i.e., "submit your article to IR because that is the only way to achieve > our vision", is not beneficial. > > Intellectual honesty requires, I think, to admit to the limitations of > what we understand and what is still unclear - Socrates said, "I do not > think that I know what I do not know".
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
On 07-Feb.-09 at 14:18, Klaus Graf wrote : > 2009/2/6 Bernard Rentier : > > 1. Universities may legitimately own a repository of all the > > publications by > > their employees, no matter what their statutes can be, they may > > also impose > > a mandate and simply enforce it by making it conditional for futher > > in-house > > funding, advancement, promotions, etc. > > This isn't true for Germany, see http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=mandat > Legal mainstream in Germany says that the freedom of research forbidds > mandating on university level. > > Klaus Graf It is most unfortunate for German researchers and for German Institutions (Universities & Research Centres). As opposed to researchers in other countries, they are missing a superb opportunity for efficient worldwide dissemination of the knowledge they generate... I have a hard time understanding what this "legal mainstream" means and what is the rationale for it... It sounds more like a moral mainstream to me. Indeed, is it unclear whether it is a law, a decree, a widely followed institutional rule, or a dominant frame of mind ? Why should people be afraid of institutional mandates ? Just because they are orders ? commandments ? Certainly not because they deprive researchers from their freedom to publish wherever they want. Freedom to decide where to publish is perfectly safe, even with IR mandates. IRs are not scientific journals and they have no intention, even in the long run, to replace them (OA journals are a different matter and they do not change a single bit the role and objectives of IRs). Depositing in an IR has nothing to do with submitting a paper to peers for review and to editors for acceptance in a journal. Basically, depositing a paper in the local IR is exactly like depositing a reprint of the paper ay the local library. Sending it to a potential reader upon request by a simple keystroke (if the paper cannot be made freely available yet legally) is just like sending a reprint by mail (but easier and cheaper). We have done this for many decades without complaints from anyone. Why would it turn into a legal worry now ? No researcher would complain (and consider it an infringement upon his/ her academic freedom to publish) if we mandated them to deposit reprints at the local library. It would be just another duty like they have many others. It would not be terribly useful, needless to say, but it would not cause an uproar. Qualitatively, nothing changes. Quantitatively, readership explodes. Best regards, Bernard Rentier
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
I believe we are getting carried away here. My point was much simpler... 1. Universities may legitimately own a repository of all the publications by their employees, no matter what their statutes can be, they may also impose a mandate and simply enforce it by making it conditional for futher in-house funding, advancement, promotions, etc. 2. Funders may legitimately own a repository of all the publications they have funded and exert a mandate as well. 3. Researchers my want their publications to be accessible in a thematic repository. And so on. One cannot reasonably hope that all researchers will fulfill all these objectives. There is only one way to get close to it while minimising the efforts for the author: make the institutional repository the primary deposit locus and set up an easy mechanism for harvesting the data in other loci. I believe the whole matter of academic freedom is flat wrong here. Academic freedom is freedom to speak and write without neither constraint nor censorship. It has nothing to do with compliance to university rules. Researchers are free to publish wherever they want to. They are also free to deposit wherever they want to. Depositing in an instititutional repository is a different matter. Mandates are a duty among many others for university members, they do not by any means reduce academic freedom. It is true that To consider that "researchers have the freedom to choose and promote the channels of distribution for their work". The Institutional mandate does not reduce that freedom. It is just an additional (but sufficient) duty. Refusing this duty is denying recognition of what is owed to one's Institution. Fortunately, in my own experience in Liege, compliance is very good (although still incomplete of course, after 2,5 months). All it takes is, when explaining to the researchers community, to put more emphasis on the positive aspects and benefits for the Institution, for the research teams and for the researchers themselves rather that on the inconvenience of having to file in the data. Bernard Rentier Le 06-févr.-09 à 19:38, Tomasz Neugebauer a écrit : > Research repositories, whether they are a physical library, an electronic > journal archive, an institutional repository or a subject repository, are > collections of interconnected components. Understood in this way, as > systems, they have emergent properties. That is, properties of the > collection that none of the components (eg.: individual research > articles) have, as well as properties of the components that the > components have as a result of being a part of that collection (eg.: > relevance ranking with respect to a topic within that collection). What > are some examples of emergent properties of repositories: the subject > coverage, the intended purpose of the collection, the demographics of the > readers and authors of the collection, etc. > > When a researcher makes the decision to publish/provide access to their > work, the emergent properties of the repository are a relevant > consideration. Consider the following hypothetical situation: a > researcher in Buddhist studies may, for example, object to being > "mandated" to the act of placing his article on the topic of > "interdependent co-arising" in the same repository that is also home to > articles from another department in his institution that specializes in, > say, promoting the philosophy of Charles Darwin in social science. That > researcher may wish to place his article in the Tibetan and Himalayan > Digital Library, but not in the IR of his university. I agree with Thomas > Krichel that researchers currently have the freedom to choose and promote > the channels of distribution for their work. > > About Arthur Sale's statements such as: > > > Arthur Sale: > "Researchers are not free agents. > [..] > I strongly support academics being required to contribute to their > discipline and access to knowledge (and opinion). Otherwise why are they > employed?" > > > > In my opinion these statements can only succeed in creating resistance > from researchers. I don't think that "the compulsory open society" is > what Karl Popper had in mind when he wrote The Open Society and Its > Enemies; "Open access in your employer's IR, or else!" The fact that the > Open Society Institute claims to be inspired by Karl Popper's Open Society > and its Enemies does not mean that Popper ever intended to have his > theories be implemented through OSI's NGOs, or at all. The Open Access > Initiative claims to define and promote "open access", but the concepts of > open society and open access reach back to antiquity and touch on > paradoxes of freedom and political theory. As an aside, OAI-PMH is a "a &g
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Li�ge]
[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
I agree. It is exactly what I was trying to say in my last paragraph
: it is my belief that lauching a centralised and/or thematic
repository (C-TR) can make sense, but only if it does not discourage
authors from posting their publications in an institutional
repository (IR), otherwise many publications will be lost in the
process (I mean lost for easy and open access).
In addition, direct posting in C-TRs will shortcut IRs and it will be
a loss for universities in their attempt to  host their entire
scholarly production (this is just a collateral effect, I know, but
being a University President, it is a worry for me).
C-TRs are of much more interest if they collect data at a secondary
level by harvesting from primary IRs.
Bernard Rentier
Le 04-févr.-09 à 20:22, Jean-Claude Guédon a écrit :
This is an old debate where one should carefully
distinguish between two levels of analysis.
1. In principle, is it better to have institutional,
distributed, depositories, or to have central, thematic,
whatever depositories?
2. In practice, we know we will not escape the will by
various institutions to develop central, thematic,
whatever depositories (e.g. Hal in France). And these
depositories will exist. The question then becomes: how
do we best live with this mixed bag of situations?
Pursuing the battle on principles is OK with me, but it
does not get me enthused.
Pursuing the battle on the pragmatic, practical level,
knowing that various tools exist that will restore the
distributed nature of these depositories anyway, appears
to me far preferable.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mercredi 04 février 2009 à 13:14 -0500, Stevan Harnad
a écrit :
This is the timely and incisive analysis (in
French) of what is at stake in the question
of locus of deposit for open access
self-archiving and mandates. It was written
by Prof. Bernard Rentier, Rector of the
University of Liège and founder
of EurOpenScholar. It is re-posted here from
Prof. Rentier's blog.
For more background (in English) on the
important issue of institutional vs. central
deposit, click here.
Liège is one of the c. 30 institutions (plus
30 funders) that have already adopted a Green
OA self-archiving mandate .
DéPôTS INSTITUTIONNELS, THéMATIQUES OU CENTRALISéS ?
Posté par Bernard
Rentier dans Open
Access
A lire:Â une
remarquable revue
très complète de l'OA
par Peter Suber.
La formule des dépôts
institutionnels permettant la
libre consultation de
publications de recherche par
l'Internet est certes la
meilleure, mais elle est, tôt ou
tard, menacée par une nouvelle
tendance visant à créer des
dépôts thématiques ou des dépôts
gérés par des organismes
finançant la recherche.
La dernière initiative provient
de la très active
association EUROHORCs (European
association of the heads of
research funding organisations
and research performing
organisations), bien connue pour
ses prix EURYI et dont
l'influence sur la réflexion
européenne en matière de
recherche est considérable. Elle
tente de convaincre l'European
Science Foundation (ESF) de
mettre sur pied, grâce à une
subvention considérable des
Communautés européennes, un dépôt
centralisé qui serait à la fois
thématique (sciences
biomédicales) et localisé
(Europe) sur base du principe qui
a conduit à la création de PubMed
Central, par exemple.
L'idée part d'un bon sentiment.
Elle est née d'une prise de
conscience que nous partageons
tous: il est impératif que la
science financée pa
The Liege IR Mandate is definitely IDOA/DDR (Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access -- Dual Deposit/Relase)
Yesterday, Klaus Graf reacted rather strongly to the announcement of the Liège University repository mandate, stating that its practice and legal framework is nonsense. It seems to me that perhaps he may have missed a few essential aspects of this mandate, essentially the way it is handled in practice, the legal whereabouts and the reasons for imposing it. Here below is the English translation of the message I have sent to the whole University Community on November 26, 2008. I believe that, rather than a lengthy explanation of how the Liège mandate works, this message tells it all much better. It can perhaps be useful as well for those who wish to find a way to obtain compliance within their universities. It demonstrates also that the Liège Mandate is indeed IDOA/DDR (Immediate-Deposit/Optional- Access -- Dual Deposit/Relase), to use the latest definitions coined in this forum. Happy New Year to all ! Bernard Rentier ~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W "Madame, Monsieur, Cher(e) Collègue, The increase in international visibility of the ULg [Université de Liège] and its researchers, mainly through their publications, as well as the support for the worldwide development of an open and free access to scientific works (Open Access) are two essential objectives at the heart of my action, as you probably know. At my requst, the Institutional Repository "ORBi" (Open Repository & Bibliography; http://orbi.ulg.ac.be ) has been set up at the ULg by the Libraries Network to meet these objectives. [1] The experimental encoding phase based on volunteerism being now successfully completed, we can step forward and enter the "production phase" this wednesday November 26th, 2008. I take this opportunity to thank all the professors and researchers who have already filed in ORBi hundreds of their references, 70% of them with the full text. Thanks to their patience, ORBi's fine tuning could be achieved. >From today on, it is incumbent upon each ULg member to feed ORBi with his/her >own references. In this respect, the Administrative Board of the University has decided to make it mandatory for all ULg members: - to deposit the bibliographic references of ALL their publications since 2002; - to deposit the integral text of ALL their articles published in periodicals since 2002. Access to these full texts will only be granted with the author's consent and according to the rules applicable to author's rights and copyrights. The University is indeed very keen on respecting the rights of all stakeholders. [2] For future publications, deposit in ORBi will be mandatory as soon as the article is accepted by the editor. [3] I wish to remind you that, as announced a year in March 2007, starting October 1st, 2009 only those references introduced in ORBi will be taken into consideration as the official list of publications accompanying any curriculum vitæ in all evaluation procedures 'in house' (designations, promotions, grant applications, etc.). Information seminars have been planned during the next months to allow every one of you to make the tool your own thing (see http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/news?id=06). Help is also accessible on line; such as the simplified user's guide (also available as a leaflet) and the Depositor's Guide. The development of ORBi offers multiple advantages not only to the Institution, but also to the researchers and their teams, such as: - a considerable speeding up of the dissemination and visibility of the scientific works (as soon as publication approval is granted; - a considerable increase in visibility for the published works through referencing in the main search engines (Googlescholar, OAI metaengines, etc.); - centralised and perennial conservation of publications allowing multiple exploitation possibilities (integration in personal web pages, in institutional web pages, export of reference lists towards other applications and to funding organisations such as the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research); - etc. I hope that, despite the time you are going to devote to this somewhat tedious task, you will soon realise the benefits of this institutional policy. With many thanks, Bernard Rentier Recteur" ~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W~W
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
This whole mess is amazing, and sad. I vote for Stevan and I am looking forward to a return to normal on this forum, even if "normal" is being criticized by some... Professor Bernard Rentier Rector University of Liege 7, place du 20 Aout 4000 Liege, Belgium Tel: +32-4-366 9700
Re: Value-Neutral Names Needed for the Two Forms of OA
[ The following text is in the "UTF-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
I vote for BASIC & FULL.Â
Cheers,
Bernard
Le 03-mai-08 Ã 05:07, Stevan Harnad a
écrit :
The Two Forms of OA Have Been Defined: They Now Need
Value-Neutral Names
SUMMARY: Our joint statement with Peter Suber noted
that both price-barrier-free access and
permission-barrier-free access are indeed forms of
Open Access (OA) and that virtually all Green OA
and much of Gold OA today is just
price-barrier-free OA, although we both agree that
permission-barrier-free OA is the ultimate
desideratum. What we had not anticipated was that
if price-barrier-free OA were actually named by its
logical condition as "Weak OA" (i.e., the necessary
condition for permission-barrier-free OA) then that
would create difficulties for those who are working
hard toward the universal adoption of the mandates
to provide price-barrier-free OA (Green OA
self-archiving mandates) that are only now
beginning to grow and flourish. So we are looking
for a shorthand or stand-in for "price-barrier-free
OA" and "permission-barrier-free OA" that will
convey the distinction without any pejorative
connotations for either form of OA. The two forms
of OA stand defined, explicitly and logically. They
are now in need of value-neutral names (e.g., BASIC
vs. FULL OA).
"Weak/Strong" marks the logical distinction between two forms
of OA: price-barrier-free access is anecessary condition for
permission-barrier-free access, and permission-barrier-free
access is a sufficient condition for price-barrier-free access.
That is the logic of weak vs. strong conditions.
But since Peter Suber and I posted the distinction, noting
that both price-barrier-free access and permission-barrier-free
access are indeed Open Access (OA), many of our colleagues have
been contacting us to express serious concern about the
unintended pejorative connotations of "weak."Â
As a consequence, to avoid this unanticipated and inadvertent
bias, the two types of OA cannot be named by the logical
conditions (weak and strong) that define them. We soon hope to
announce a more transparent, unbiased pair of names. Current
candidates include:
Transparent, self-explanatory descriptors:
USE OA vs. RE-USE OA
READ OA vs. READ-WRITE OA
PRICE OA vs. PERMISSION OA
Generic descriptors:
BASIC or GENERIC or CORE OA vs.
EXTENDED or EXTENSIBLE or FULL OA
SOFT OA vs. HARD OA
EASY OA vs. HARD OA
(My own sense it that the consensus is tending toward BASIC vs.
FULL OA.)
The ultimate choice of names matters far less than ensuring
that the unintended connotations of "weak" cannot be exploited
by the opponents of OA, or by the partisans of one of the forms
of OA to the detriment of the other. Nor should mandating "weak
OA" be discouraged by the misapprehension that it is some sort
of sign of weakness, or of a deficient desideratum
The purpose of our joint statement with Peter Suber had been to
make explicit what is already true de facto, which is that both
price-barrier-free access and permission-barrier-free access
are indeed forms of Open Access (OA), and referred to as such,
and that virtually all Green OA today, and much of Gold OA
today, is just price-barrier-free OA, not
permission-barrier-free OA, although we both agree that
permission-barrier-free OA is the ultimate desideratum.
But what Peter Suber and I had not anticipated was that if
price-barrier-free OA were actually named by its logical
condition as "Weak OA" (i.e., the necessary condition for
permission-barrier-free OA) then that would create difficulties
for those who are working hard toward the universal adoption of
the mandates to provide price-barrier-free OA (Green OA
self-archiving mandates) that are only now beginning to grow
and flourish.
In particular, Professor Bernard Rentier, the Rector of the
University of Liege (which has adopted a Green OA
self-archiving mandate to provide price-barrier-free OA) is
also the founder of EurOpenScholar, which is dedicated to
promoting the adoption of Green OA mandates in the universities
of Europe and worldwide. Professor Rentier advised us quite
explicitly that if price-boundary-free OA were called "Weak
OA," it would make it much harder to persuade other rectors to
adopt Green OA mandates -- purely because of the negative
connotations of "weak."
Nor is the solution to try instead to promote
permission-barrier-free ("Strong OA") mandates, for the
obstacles and resistance to that are far, far greater. We are
al
Mandates, coercion and vegetables
I like Les Carr's way to put it. Indeed coercion and mandates are very unpleasant words. Being a university "rector" (as we say, let's say Chairman, President or Vice-Chancellor), I am very sensitive to words that remind us of dictatorship. At a meeting on Institutional Repositories in Valencia two months ago, after having explained that in my university (Liege, Belgium), posting in te repository every paper produced was mandatory, I was very unpleasantly compared to Stalin by one of the attending faculty. It makes you think. Since then, I try to avoid such dictatorial vocabulary. Obligation, mandate, coercion mean implicitly that ought to be a punishment, a penalty, if one does not comply. But there is a huge panel of possible penalties. If you want compliance, use penalties that mean something to people without shocking them. Indeed, telling your researchers very simply that only the publications deposited in the official list of their university, i.e. the institutional repository, will be taken into account for evaluation of their CVs in the context of promotions, will do. It is simple and fair. And it hits the goal. To the benefit of all: the author and the University. The second aspect is not fear, it is pride. Making some publicity about the papers published by the members of the Institution can be music to the researchers' ears. And selecting the good, or best papers of the week or of the month, or even better, the top ten or twenty or whatever most quoted papers and mentioning them specially on the University website is a real delight for the author(s). And there are many other incentives one can think of along the same line. I hate the expression "carrot and stick" but I am sure everybody understands here what I mean: both are effective, the secret is to use some stick perhaps, if really necessary, but mostly carrots. The university leaders who have difficulties to innovate in the carrot world are left with the sticks and will have a hard time succeeding in imposing reform. It is a great chance that institutional repositories provide so many opportunities to develop new carrots. Let's juste use some imagination and let's propose a wide panel of incentives.
Re: From Father Christmas to all the little boys and girls wishing for Open Access
[ The following text is in the "UTF-8" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Congratulations, Father Christmas, for this perfect and definitive lesson. It could not be clearer! Bernard Le 23-déc.-07 à 02:43, Stevan Harnad a écrit : On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, [anonymous] wrote: Dear Father Christmas, My wish goes towards allowing any researcher free access to current scientific information -- and when I say free, I mean without any constraint of fees, subscription, copyright. And what would be better than having open archives/repositories? But I know this is pure utopia. Even you, Father Xmas, are you on Open Access? Since you are a creation of human intellect, someone must have an exclusive copyright on you, so is it even allowed to quote you without permission? How to get out of this dilemma? Recently, in France and Germany, lawmakers wrote a new law, punishing anybody intending to infringe copyright with enormous fines... My fellow European scientists are afraid and no longer dare to express their ideas. Father Xmas, give us some suggestions to be discussed in our Forum, but do not tell anybody else: we don't want to be prosecuted... REPLY FROM FATHER XMAS, NORTH POLE: Dear little boys and girls everywhere who yearn for Open Access: Yes, there is a way that you can have the Open Access you say you so fervently desire. But Father Christmas cannot give it to you, any more than Father Christmas can give you big muscles, if that is what you yearn for. All Father Christmas can do is tell you how you yourselves can build the big muscles you desire (by exercising daily with increasing weights). And for Open Access it is exactly the same: It depends entirely on you, dear children, each and every one of you. Nor can you build big muscles from one day to the other. If you try to lift too heavy a weight, too early, you only cause yourself muscle strain. So don't insist on too much overnight. Start with one simple fact that is easy to assimilate: There is nothing, either physical or legal that prevents you from depositing your own final, peer-reviewed drafts (postprints) of all your own current research journal articles in an OAI-compliant repository: Nothing. Not copyright. Not technology. Not cost. Not expertise. No point in writing to Father Christmas to wish that, because it it is already entirely in your own hands: Your institution has no Institutional Repository yet? Then deposit your postprint in a central repository, like CogPrints or Depot or Arxiv or HAL or PubMed Central for the time being. The journal in which it is published does not yet endorse immediate OA self-archiving? Then set access to the deposit as Closed Access rather than OA for the time being, for as long as the journal embargoes access. But do the deposit now. That's all. If all the little boys and girls did that before Christmas this year, on Christmas day all the current research worldwide would be visible worldwide, 62% of it already Open Access (because 62% of journals already endorse immediate OA self-archiving). For the remaining 38% deposited in Closed Access, the metadata (author, title, journalname, date etc.) would be immediately visible worldwide, so any user who wanted to access the full-text could immediately email the author to request an eprint by email. That is not immediate 100% OA, but it is almost-immediate, almost-OA. Many Repositories already have a button whereby eprints can be requested and sent semi-automatically: one keystroke from the requester, one keystroke from the author. If all of you deposited all your current postprints before Christmas, boys and girls, all Repositories would soon have that button. And the growth of the OA muscles in this way, worldwide, keystroke by keystroke, would soon hasten the natural and well-deserved death of the remaining publisher-embargoes. (Yes, dear children, it is within the spirit of Christmas to speak about the "death" of evil things, such as plagues, hunger, war, injustice, and research access embargoes!) So, dear little boys and girls, there are some things for which wishing or writing a letter to Santa Claus is not quite enough. Time to start exercising your little fingers. And if you find doing the keystrokes for depositing all your current articles before Christmas too low an ergonomic priority -- first, congratulations for having published so much at such a young age! And second, instead of just writing to St. Nick, I suggest writing to the Principal, Rector, Vice-Chancellor or Provost of your school, to make known to them your fervent desire for OA, pointing out also your faintness of will about doing the keystrokes as long as you feel you would be doing those dactylographics alone. Father Christmas understands that as little researchers, you are already so busy and overloaded that you cannot take the time to exercise your fingers in
