Re: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates
Trade unions may not strike over copyright, but I still have the bruises to prove that copyright can cause a furore. At UCL a few years ago I dared to suggest that UCL might own the copyright in some of the work of its academic staff. I was vilified internally, the AUT (as it was then) were up in arms, and I was pilloried in "Private Eye" for daring to make the suggestion. As you can tell I survived to tell the tale, and appearing in "Private Eye" did wonders for my image, but don't under-estimate the seething passions under the calm surface of copyright. Fred Friend - Original Message - From: "j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk" To: Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: Re: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates 'the general fear of the employer about possible trade union action based on copyright issues relating to academic research' A fanciful argument. As Stevan often points out, scholarly papers - the subject of this forum - are not money-making propositions anyway. Campus trade unions and university managements have much more important issues to fight about. I can't imagine a strike about copyright! Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK (President, Loughborough University branch of the Association of University Teachers, 1999-2003)
Re: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates
'the general fear of the employer about possible trade union action based on copyright issues relating to academic research' A fanciful argument. As Stevan often points out, scholarly papers - the subject of this forum - are not money-making propositions anyway. Campus trade unions and university managements have much more important issues to fight about. I can't imagine a strike about copyright! Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK (President, Loughborough University branch of the Association of University Teachers, 1999-2003)
Re: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Talat Chaudhri [tac] wrote:
> [A] reason why it might be that student theses are mandated sooner
> than staff research [is] the general fear of the employer about
> possible trade union action based on copyright issues relating to
> academic research
Talat, this is the canard that institutional OA activists like you should
set as your highest priority target for debunking! I think that it is an
even bigger obstacle to the adoption of Green OA self-archiving mandates
than the (equally groundless) worry that staff would resent or fail to
comply with a mandate.
There is a simple, legal, decisive, and universal solution to all
copyright-related worries: Do not mandate OA. Mandate *deposit*, and leave
the decision as to whether to set access to the deposit as Open Access
or Closed Access (only the bibliographic metadata accessible) up to
the author.
This is the Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) mandate, and it is
the default mandate that all OA activists should be aiming for (unless,
of course, they can get an even stronger one without any opposition or
delay).
Nature, and human nature, will take care of the rest.
The Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA) Mandate:
Rationale and Model
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates:
What? Where? When? Why? How?
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
How the Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access Mandate
+ the "Fair Use" Button Work
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.h
tml
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing Open Access
to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
http://www.doaj.org/
AND
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your own institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/
Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
Hi Steve, Thanks for your kind remarks. We are fortunate in that the repository came about as an experimental project in the IT section of our converged library/IT department but was then capitalised upon by a forward thinking IS director, and it appears that our luck is holding with two pro VCs who so far have seemed to show great interest in OA. This seems thus far to be giving the levers that, as you say, some lack. I am the one managing the repository, but my superiors in the library are supportive and allow me possibly the most significant role in forming policy. I'm sure other models also work with equal success. I just hope that our progress thus far will translate into a mandate at some point. In general you are quite right to say that the gap, in terms of both understanding and policy agenda, between us and the senior managers needs to be bridged. I feel that it is part of my job to make those connections, but it may not be the same for every repository manager or administrator, as some institutions have a much less devolved structure than ours. > The institutional mandate is the affirmation of the *institutional* repository. Well, considering that there are certain costs involved, and the success of individual repositories varies, I can understand why some senior managers take a cautious approach, especially as copyright risk is also involved. Perhaps seeing it from their point of view may help us bridge the gap. I'd be interested to hear how other repository projects came about and about the structure by which they are managed, to compare with our experience. I hope this response is a useful synopsis of ours. Thanks, Talat
Re: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates
[ 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. ] A much better way is to work with the union. Unions are not against open access, especially when they understand the issues. The problem is more one of ignorance than one of hostility. Student unions can also be approached. Jean-Claude Guédon Le vendredi 30 novembre 2007 à 16:55 +, FrederickFriend a écrit : Trade unions may not strike over copyright, but I still have the bruises to prove that copyright can cause a furore. At UCL a few years ago I dared to suggest that UCL might own the copyright in some of the work of its academic staff. I was vilified internally, the AUT (as it was then) were up in arms, and I was pilloried in "Private Eye" for daring to make the suggestion. As you can tell I survived to tell the tale, and appearing in "Private Eye" did wonders for my image, but don't under-estimate the seething passions under the calm surface of copyright. Fred Friend - Original Message - From: "j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk" To: Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: Re: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates 'the general fear of the employer about possible trade union action based on copyright issues relating to academic research' A fanciful argument. As Stevan often points out, scholarly papers - the subject of this forum - are not money-making propositions anyway. Campus trade unions and university managements have much more important issues to fight about. I can't imagine a strike about copyright! Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK (President, Loughborough University branch of the Association of University Teachers, 1999-2003)
Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
Talat has wonderful energy and enthusiasm for building his institution's repository by means of advocacy, and Arthur presents clear evidence that without a mandate there is an upper limit to the success of that approach. Talat's best alternative, as for all repository managers in a similar position, is the patchwork mandate. The problem is that many, perhaps most, repository managers do not have the levers for mandates. These discussions of practical repository issues, whether it concerns mandates, copyright, really anything to do with policy, appear to omit the key people, those who bear responsibility for the institution's repository. They are: 1 The senior manager(s) who took the decision to introduce a repository 2 The manager within the part of the institution that is responsible for managing the repository They may or may not be the same person. They hold the keys to policy. But who are they, and where are they? How does this relationship work, and how much does it differ across institutions? What do they want from their IR? We need to hear from them and find out what works best, for their benefit and for others to follow. Repository managers work within a framework determined, either actively or passively, by 1 and/or 2, and it may not be a very comfortable place at all, not least because 2 could be in a horribly conflicted or compromised position too. I wonder if we are really aware of this reality. Institutional mandates ultimately need to be authorised from the very top, and much effort is being put into making those people aware of the issues. But before we get there we have to understand the gap in the chain between the most senior managers and the day-to-day repository manager. We have to be more transparent about what is going on in that gap before we will see management for the progress and benefit of repositories and the institutions, rather than for IRs as awkward inconveniences to be tolerated until the fuss dies down. Repositories will not begin to reach out successfully to authors as depositors - and this is what I think is behind the success of mandates too - until they have clearly defined, effective management structures for repositories within institutions. That is the essence of the institutional repository, rather than the repository within the institution. The institutional mandate is the affirmation of the *institutional* repository. Steve Hitchcock IAM Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
Hi Arthur, I am glad that you did not intend what came across as a slight to those engaging in grass-roots advocacy where their institutions are still relying on the voluntarist approach and have not yet achieved a mandate. As I have said, even though I don't dispute that voluntarism fails to fill repositories, it does form an important part of the initial development of a repository - and it is important for yourselves as advocates nearer to the political end of OA, with established repositories youselves, to cast your minds back to how things used to be when you were in this situation: the majority of repositories are not yet so well established, as you know. I take this approach because the case studies and content that have already arisen from my engagement with academics volunteering to archive their work form a major part of the resources that I can use to convince the departments and management to support a mandate, as well as to raise awareness amongst other academics before the event, essentially to get them on side whether or not they are in practice too fundamentally lazy to actually archive their papers without a prior mandate in place. I am not, as you put it, fooling myself into thinking that I can get compliance through voluntarism, but this is where we must start. I have absolutely no choice in this matter, of course. I must lay the groundwork on which a future mandate can work. Without such groundwork, as I maintain, no mandate would be able to work in practice. In essence, we need the first 15-20% before the rest is within our reach. Thank you for the useful information about the Patchwork Mandate, which I will look at with great interest. Another reason why it might be that student theses are mandated sooner than staff research (apart from the general fear of the employer about possible trade union action based on copyright issues relating to academic research) is highlighted by the experience of the average cataloguing librarian: the paper copies are expensive and time-consuming to process, so it is an obvious cost advantage to both students and libraries to work towards dispensing with them. With regard to your last point, that you seek to promote realism rather than discourage repository managers on this list, this is very welcome indeed to hear. I am very grateful for the information, as I have no doubt other repository managers are too. If you bear in mind the needs of those managing embryonic repositories, please consider more often the path as well as the goal, then perhaps no more of these unnecessary disagreements will arise between us. With best wishes, Talat
Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback
Talat Thank you for your robust reply, Stevan has already responded to most of your points, but I should pick up a few myself since my post provoked it. I do not say that advocacy is not useful. It is, mainly for acculturing researchers, repository and departmental managers, and senior management to the purposes of a repository. Indeed without advocacy where would we all be now? And what am I doing writing emails like this one or the last? What I wrote and what I will spell out again in absolutely clear language is this: advocacy that researchers should voluntarily deposit has by itself never achieved the filling or near-filling of a repository with all available input (say, all papers published in a particular year). The norm is in the range of 10 to 20% of available documents. This experience is based on repositories on all continents, over four years of people trying advocacy, is independent of the age of the repository, and despite every advocacy idea that the collected intellect of repository managers can come up with. No repository manager should fool themselves thinking otherwise - that their ideas will have more effect than the rest of the world. The evidence is absolutely incontrovertible. 100% of all universities with voluntary deposit exhibit this feature. This applies to new foundations and those that have been going for many years, regardless of university size. If there was one exception I would have heard about it by now. Conversely 100% of all universities or departments that adopt a mandate (requirement) achieve 80% or more within three years. It probably takes this long for researchers to internalize the minor additional workload as part of their normal required duties. You outlined that you were also seeking mandates. Great, and so you should if you want to fill your repository. You also mentioned that you were trying to get heads of departments and research directors to create local departmental mandates. Great also. This strategy is called the Patchwork Mandate http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/january2007-sale and is very useful while you keep hammering away at obtuse senior executives. You also asked if anyone knew why voluntary deposit coupled with advocacy did not achieve significant goals. Unfortunately many universities which fail in this way are reluctant to discuss why they have failed, probably because they don't want to admit it even to themselves. Those that have succeeded, all with institutional or departmental mandates, are very willing to talk. What seems clear is the primary answer I gave you: it is voluntary avoidable work, and under pressure of work and other more enjoyable activities will be avoided by most. However, there seems to be another factor working that Stevan did not mention: researchers who are converted, do not stay converted. So as rapidly as advocates convert new persons to deposit, others backslide and drop out, for the above reason. I can even show you a big university in Australia whose deposit-advocacy policies are second to none in my opinion. They give out prizes and publicise the most downloaded author, they run feature articles in the house magazine and publish leaderboards, they provide usage statistics to their authors, and they are well-known in the community for their advocacy policy. They achieved close to the 20% of available documents annually that I mentioned as the likely upper limit for voluntary policies. However, when you look at the facts, in the last six months, the deposit rate has been declining. The reasons why are not clear, but there could be factors such as loss of converts, becoming blasé, other matters taking priority, etc. What is not in dispute though is that the deposit rate is not going up! That's factual. So let's revisit the Patchwork Mandate. This is a strategy for divide and conquer. Perhaps an advocate like yourself can manage to keep a set of departmental heads or research directors converted by assiduous attention, and then rely on them promulgating a requirement (mandate) to their staff. When this set becomes big enough, the right people will be there for making this requirement a university policy. And as an aside, may I point out that over 50% of Australian universities mandate that PhD graduates must deposit their final theses in a repository indexed at http://adt.caul.edu.au/, and the number is steadily growing. Why? The reason is equally obvious. Of course, it much easier for a university to mandate student behavior than staff behavior. Finally, let me say that I have no wish or intention of discouraging you or anyone else. Indeed the reverse. But I want you and all people on this list to be realists in their appreciation of the facts, which is why I, at least, spend time writing papers and these posts. Better to act with factual knowledge than delude yourself in ignorance. Best wishes. Arthur Sale Professor of Computer Science University of Tasmania
Information about MEPs
Information about MEPs (was Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback) Thierry Chanier wrote >Could someone give more information about which >MEP belonging to which country are in favour of moving ?[1] I have a (rather rough) Excel file of MEP's names, addresses, and interests [2]. Copy already sent to Thierry Chanier. I am happy to send this Excel to any one else who wants to know about their MEP. N.Miradon [1] http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind07&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&S=&P=25 [2] made from the c.v.s of MEPs at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/alphaOrder.do?letter=A ... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/alphaOrder.do?letter=Z
