[GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
Sorry Stevan. My recent reply to Tim answers most of these points. Please remember than I am an ICT professional. The ones that are not refuted by that reply (or require emphasis) are: . All author deposits must be audited. They may be in error and may even be fraudulent. There is plenty of incentive for the latter, given the lax controls. I could even see phishing repositories developing. Even author identity can be hacked, perhaps by students. . There may not ever have been an AM (refereed draft in your terminology) as a single file. To deliberately make one up for the local repository is extra effort (aka work) by the author, or imposes extra work on the reader if that the integration is not done or not possible. . Physicists produce pretty simple papers in ICT terms. Few animations, 3D models, videos, audio, etc. In other words physicists produce clunky pdf-reducible objects, whether in astronomy or particle physics. That's why they were and are good candidates for OA. Computer scientists were, but no longer are as much. . The request-a-copy button is not perfect. Especially with the direction that scholarly publication is likely to go. For example, sending 50 files by the button is not catered for. I can provide advice if wanted. If we preface your mantras by [if convenient] or [if immediately possible], they are perhaps barely acceptable. Frankly, I think that academics are cleverer than you give them credit for. In reading your comments, I have mentally deleted the perjorative 'sensible', 'cautious', 'timid' and 'foolish'. For your information, I do (1) when I can [not always]; (2) almost never since I don't know the publication date in advance, (3) I never ask the publisher for a date for reasons in (2), (4) I've never actioned this, because I am an OA advocate and I won't publish unless I can make my article OA, or feel safe being illegal. I regard the REF deposit requirement to be absurd, and will continue to support the Australian authorities in their better grasp of the situation than the UK. Best wishes Arthur Sale From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013 1:55 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum Subject: [GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate An immediate-deposit mandate moots most of this discussion. Versions and rights need not be checked if the mandate simply says: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." So all this discussion is about what *else* you can do, and when. Here's a list: 1. A sensible author will make the immediate-deposit OA immediately, just as physicists have been successfully doing for decades with no problems. 2. A cautious author will look up the publsher's embargo policy as well as the funder's embargo limit, and make the immediate-deposit OA at whichever date comes first. 3. A timid author will look up the publsher's embargo policy and make the immediate-deposit OA at whatever date the publisher indicates. 4. A foolish author will simply make the immediate-deposit and leave it as Closed Access (attending to reprint requests generated by the request copy Button on an individual case by case basis). The speed with which we reach 100% Green OA and beyond depends on the relative proportion of foolish, timid, cautious and sensible authors. But please, while we keep speculating, let us all mandate immediate-deposit. I don't mean just: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." Improve on that in any way you like: "and make it OA immediately" "and make it OA immediately or after X months at the latest" But in any case, deposit immediately! Stevan Harnad On 2013-03-21, at 9:40 AM, Hans PfeiffenbergAer wrote: Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody: By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution - may have a copy if the identity of the file submitted or its equivalence with the version of record can be established - may have an OA copy. But to establish that, someone at the institution (the library?) must check the copyright notice in it (if any) and possibly consult with the authors about his/her contract with the publisher (because, legally, something found on the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not count), ... I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other side as well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should therefore be stopped. Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from being about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of science. And setting up of mandates and policies which are the least costly to enforce. Cost
[GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
Tim Let me put it simply. A true copy is as good as a link. Not better, but the same. But a true copy is difficult to ensure. The odds are significant that the "copy" is not true. · Let us assume that the copying process makes a copy of the file to which the link refers. · It may not collect the actual full-text but to a route on the way. In this case the copy is a serious distraction and its links may well be broken and fail. · It may be a partial copy to the full text or a copy of something completely different. For example suppose the link is to an html article. First Monday is an example Gold refereed journal which uses this style. The copy process retrieves the raw text file (hopefully, if it is not in a frame, otherwise it retrieves just the external frame code) complete with hyperlinks to all the images, diagrams, charts, audio, or video. Pretty likely the links in the copy are broken. The reader is presented with a stupid and unsatisfying copy. He or she wants the real thing, so either uses the link in the metadata (if there is one which I assert should be mandatory) or has to search for the article using a search engine. Or forget about it. · In other cases of which I am aware, the end document is constructed of a table of contents, with dependent hyperlinked separate chapter files. The copy process now retrieves the table of contents, with probably broken links. · In yet other cases the end article is protected by a cover page with a CAPTCHA. The automated copy process fails to make a copy. · I defer talking about ensuring that you are trying to make a copy of an actual thing. To forestall Stevan’s inevitable response that this is all unnecessary because the author can just deposit the accepted manuscript, what he has failed to take into account is: · The author may not have an AM. Quite often a journal will ask me to not integrate everything into a Word file, but to provide the raw text (preferably unformatted and looking pretty crummy) with markers where I would like the figures and diagrams to go, and to provide the non-text items as a set of separate files. This means that a requirement to deposit the AM may involve the author in extra work, to suit a Stevan-inspired mandate. (Or if he/she does not do the work, the reader gets a collection of files, poorly presented.) · If the author has chosen to publish in an open access outlet and wear the cost (if any, quite often none), they will want people to see the Version of Record, not a preliminary version. The situation is totally dissimilar to that of publication in a subscription journal where the VoR is hidden behind a price barrier, and access even to a preliminary version copy (the AM) is better than none. In the already OA case the compromise does not have to be made and shouldn’t. I return to the point: copying an already open access document is a waste of the author's time if they have to disassemble a complete version to put into the repository. It is possible that it may not even be feasible to incorporate into a single file. Believe me, I have met this situation. It is not hypothetical. We are also likely to waste the reader's time as well as the author's. And we introduce the possibility of error and the temptation to fraud into open access. I don’t think we need either. I think that you are falling in the trap of thinking that every journal article is produced as a Word file or a pdf. They aren't. Even less will they be as Internet usage continues to expand into academic territory. Best wishes Arthur -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Tim Brody Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2013 8:35 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate Hi Arthur, I don't understand how a link is more useful than a copy (although obviously having both is preferable)? Let us say that either a) an author imports a record from a publisher with link or b) pastes a link into the repository. Either way, that link tells us nothing about the state of the item on the publisher's web site (gold or green). As you say, you could hit a jump-off page, robots challenge or otherwise. In order to say for certain that the link given is as the metadata describes, and that the item is available under the correct license, someone will have to visit the publisher's site (from a public IP) and set a flag to say 'verified'. By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. It also has the added benefit of guaranteeing long-term access to that work. After all, that is what libraries have been doing for hundreds of years with paper. -- All the best, Tim. On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 08:54 +1
[GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
An immediate-deposit mandate moots most of this discussion. Versions and rights need not be checked if the mandate simply says: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." So all this discussion is about what *else* you can do, and when. Here's a list: 1. A sensible author will make the immediate-deposit OA immediately, just as physicists have been successfully doing for decades with no problems. 2. A cautious author will look up the publsher's embargo policy as well as the funder's embargo limit, and make the immediate-deposit OA at whichever date comes first. 3. A timid author will look up the publsher's embargo policy and make the immediate-deposit OA at whatever date the publisher indicates. 4. A foolish author will simply make the immediate-deposit and leave it as Closed Access (attending to reprint requests generated by the request copy Button on an individual case by case basis). The speed with which we reach 100% Green OA and beyond depends on the relative proportion of foolish, timid, cautious and sensible authors. But please, while we keep speculating, let us all mandate immediate-deposit. I don't mean just: "Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access." Improve on that in any way you like: "and make it OA immediately" "and make it OA immediately or after X months at the latest" But in any case, deposit immediately! Stevan Harnad On 2013-03-21, at 9:40 AM, Hans PfeiffenbergAer wrote: > > Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody: >> By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution >> can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. > wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution > > - may have a copy if the identity of the file submitted or its equivalence > with the version of record can be established > > - may have an OA copy. But to establish that, someone at the institution (the > library?) must check the copyright notice in it (if any) and possibly > consult with the authors about his/her contract with the publisher (because, > legally, something found on the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not > count), ... > > > I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other side as > well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should therefore be stopped. > > Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from being > about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of science. And setting > up of mandates and policies which are the least costly to enforce. Cost to > the admin dept., of course! Where the library, if involved in this, may morph > into a branch of admin. > > How very German! Enjoy! > > > best, > > Hans > > > ___ > 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
[GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody: By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution - may have a /*copy*/ if the identity of the file submitted or its equivalence with the version of record can be established - may have an /*OA copy*/. But to establish that, someone at the institution (the library?) must check the copyright notice in it (if any) and possibly consult with the authors about his/her contract with the publisher (because, legally, something found on the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not count), ... I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other side as well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should therefore be stopped. Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from being about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of science. And setting up of mandates and policies which are the least costly to enforce. Cost to the admin dept., of course! Where the library, if involved in this, may morph into a branch of admin. How very German! Enjoy! best, Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: [BOAI] Who is afraid of open access ?
Begin forwarded message: > From: Marin Dacos > Subject: [BOAI] Who is afraid of open access ? > Date: 21 March, 2013 4:06:20 AM EDT > > Dear colleagues, > > The French newspaper Le Monde has published a public statement, > signed by sixty members of the academic community (Presidents of > universities, Librarians, Journals, publishers and researchers) under > the title "Who is afraid of open access ?". The original paper is here : > > http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2013/03/15/qui-a-peur-de-l-open-acces_1848930_1650684.html > > More than 1500 people already signed this statement, calling for > open access as fast as possible and asking for HSS taking leadership > in this direction. It is now available in English : > http://iloveopenaccess.org/arguments-for-open-access/ > > You can sign it : http://iloveopenaccess.org/?page_id=329 > > Best regards, > Marin Dacos > Director - OpenEdition > > > > Arguments for Open Access to Research Results > > In July 2012, the European Commission issued a recommendation on Open Access > (i.e. free for the readers) publication of the results of publicly funded > scientific research. The Commission believes that such a measure is necessary > to increase the visibility of European research before 2020, by gradually > suppressing the barriers between readers and scientific papers, after a > possible embargo period from six to twelve months. Latin America has been > benefiting from this approach for ten years after the development of powerful > platforms for Open Access journals. Scielo and Redalyc, which together host > almost 2000 journals, have considerably increased their visibility thanks to > their Open Access policy: the Brazilian portalScielo now has more traffic > than the US-based JSTOR. Such examples show that Open Access changes the > balance of power in a world dominated by groups which hold thousands of > (mostly English-language) journals: it paves the way to what could be called > a real “bibliodiversity”, since it enables the emergence of a plurality of > viewpoints, modes of publication, scientific paradigms, and languages. > > Some French editors of journals in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) > have expressed their concern with regard to this recommendation, which they > saw as a threat to a vulnerable business model. However, a thorough > assessment of the sector would be required to provide a true cost-benefit > analysis: one should shed light on its funding sources and modes, both direct > and indirect, public and private, and determine the roles the various actors > play in this field, pinpointing the added value brought about by each of them. > > To be afraid of Open Access is, in our eyes, to commit oneself to a narrow – > and in fact erroneous – vision of the future. If the HSS were set aside in a > specific “reservation” today, they would become isolated and would ultimately > become extinct. On the contrary, we think that the HSS can be at the > forefront of this opening movement, precisely because there is an increasing > social demand for their research results (we estimate the overall traffic on > Cairn, OpenEdition, Erudit and Persée to be around 10 million visits per > month!). The fears voiced by our friends and colleagues are largely > groundless in this respect. Not only is the share of sales made outside of > higher education and research institutions very small in the business models > of HSS journals, which remain mostly directly or indirectly funded by public > money, but there exist new business models capable of reinforcing the > position of publishers without having the authors pay, as is demonstrated by > the success of the Freemium programme developed by OpenEdition, a French > initiative. Solutions to finance a high-quality open digital publication > system are being invented and have started to prove their efficiency, as in > the cases of Scielo, the Public Library of Science (PLOS), Redalyc or > OpenEdition. It would be a disaster if the HSS were kept aside from this > powerful and innovative movement which is bound to reshape our scientific > landscape. Far from backing off, they must be among the leading disciplines > in this movement, as they are in the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking > countries. The resistance to this evolution advocated by some of our > colleagues seems to be a short-term strategy neglecting the potential > benefits for science and education, as well as the democratisation of access > to knowledge it will enable. > > According to us, this is not only an economic and commercial problem. > Although the existence of an Elsevier-Springer-Wiley oligopoly exerts heavy > pressure on university budgets and although the funding system of academic > publishing should be rethought, generalised Open Access is first and foremost > a matter of scientific policy. Knowledge cannot be treated as a commodity and > its dissemination is more th
[GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
Hi Arthur, I don't understand how a link is more useful than a copy (although obviously having both is preferable)? Let us say that either a) an author imports a record from a publisher with link or b) pastes a link into the repository. Either way, that link tells us nothing about the state of the item on the publisher's web site (gold or green). As you say, you could hit a jump-off page, robots challenge or otherwise. In order to say for certain that the link given is as the metadata describes, and that the item is available under the correct license, someone will have to visit the publisher's site (from a public IP) and set a flag to say 'verified'. By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. It also has the added benefit of guaranteeing long-term access to that work. After all, that is what libraries have been doing for hundreds of years with paper. -- All the best, Tim. On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 08:54 +1100, Arthur Sale wrote: > Thanks Tim. No I don't think I missed the point. > > I agree that certification of all *repository* documents for REF (or > in our case ERA) is the same, whether the source is from a > subscription or an open access source. The point is that repository > documents are divorced from the source, and are therefore suspect. > Researchers are as human as everyone else, whether by error or fraud. > However, Gold is slightly easier to certify (see next para), even > leaving aside the probability that the institution may not subscribe > to all (non-OA) journals or conference proceedings. > > One of the reasons I argue that the ARC policy of requiring a link to > OA (aka Gold) journal articles (rather than taking a copy) is that one > compliance step is removed. The link provides access to the VoR at its > canonical source, and there can be no argument about that. Taking a > copy inserts the necessity of verifying that the copy is in fact what > it purports to be, and relying on the institution's certification. > > May I strongly urge that EPrints, if given a URL to an off-site > journal article, at the very least *inserts* the URL (or other > identifier) into a "canonic source link" piece of metadata, whether or > not it bothers about making a copy (which function should be able to > be suppressed by the repository administrator as a repository-wide > option). > > One of the problems that the "take-a-copy" crowd ignore, is that the > link to a Gold article might in fact not be direct to the actual VoR, > but to a guardian "cover page". This cover page might contain > publisher advertising or licence information before the actual link, > or it might require one to comply with free registration maybe even > with a CAPTCHA. It may be protected with a robots.txt file. No matter, > the article is still open access, even though repository software may > not be able to access it. (Drawn to my attention by private > correspondence from Petr Knoth.) > > Arthur Sale > > -Original Message- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > Tim Brody > Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013 9:19 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access > Mandate > > Hi Arthur, > > I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The statement I was > responding to was that gold includes everything you need to audit against > (UK) funder compliance and "the same can not be said for Green". > > I have no wish to debate the merits of gold vs. green, beyond pointing out > that publisher-provided open access is no easier to audit than > institution-provided open access. Indeed, if institutions are doing the > reporting (as they will in the UK) an OA copy in the repository is easier to > report on than a copy held only at the publisher. > > I don't know where Graham got the idea that gold will make auditing easier. > Whether the publisher provides an OA copy or the author, all the points you > make apply equally. > > -- > All the best, > Tim. > > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 08:40 +1100, Arthur Sale wrote: > > Tim, you oversimplify the auditing of green. Try this instead, which is > > more realistic. > > For green, an institution needs to: > > > > 1) Require the author uploads a file. Timestamp the instant of upload. > > > > (1A) Check that the file gives a citation of a journal or conference > > published article, and that the author is indeed listed as a co-author. You > > might assume this, but not for auditing. EPrints can check this. > > > > (1B) Check that the refereeing policy of the journal or conference complies > > with the funder policy. This is absolutely essential. There are > > non-compliant examples of journals and conferences. More difficult to do > > with EPrints, but possible for most. > > > > (1C) Check that the file is a version (AM or VoR) of the cited published > > a
