[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[David Prosser]

I’m not sure that Dr Weckowska has thought through the full implications of the 
HEFCE policy:

In addition, she says: “Under the new HEFCE policy, researchers have incentives 
to make their best 4 papers accessible through the gold or green OA route 
(assuming that the REF again requires 4 papers) but they do not have incentives 
to make ALL their papers openly accessible.”

Only papers that were deposited on acceptance are eligible for consideraton in 
the next REF.  It is a rare researcher who, as they are publishing, will be 
able to say ’this will be one of my top-4, I will make it OA.  But this one 
won’t be - I definitely won’t want to submit it to the REF - so I won’t make it 
OA'.   A researcher will want to choose from all of their papers and so will 
need to ensure that all of their papers fulfil the mandate - not just the 4 (or 
however many) that, with hindsight, they think are best.  It is this - rather 
clever - part of the policy that will push up the proportion of OA papers.

David


On 22 Sep 2014, at 15:02, Richard Poynder 
mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote:

As a result of prolonged pressure from the open access (OA) movement — and 
following considerable controversy within the research community — the UK is 
now embarked on a journey that OA advocates hope will lead to all 
publicly-funded research produced in the country being made freely available on 
the Internet.

This, they believe, will be the outcome of the OA mandates from Research 
Councils UK (which came into effect on April 1st 2013) and the Higher Education 
Funding Council for England (which will come into effect in 2016).

It has taken the OA movement twelve years to get the UK to this point (the 
Budapest Open Access Initiative was authored in 2002), but advocates believe 
that these two mandates have now made open access a done deal in the country. 
As such, they say, they represent a huge win for the movement.

Above all, they argue, HEFCE’s insistence that only those works that have been 
deposited in an open repository will be eligible for assessment for REF2020 
(which directly affects faculty tenure, promotion and funding) is a requirement 
that no researcher can afford to ignore.

But could this be too optimistic a view? Dagmara Weckowska, a lecturer in 
Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex, believes it may be. While 
she does not doubt that the RCUK/HEFCE policies will increase the number of 
research outputs made open access, she questions whether they will be as 
effective as OA advocates appear to assume.

Weckowska reached this conclusion after doing some research earlier this year 
into how researchers’ attitudes to open access have changed as a result of the 
RCUK policy. This, she says, suggests that open access mandates will only be 
fully successful if researchers can be convinced of the benefits of open 
access. As she puts it, “Researchers who currently provide OA only when they 
are required to do so by their funders will need a change of heart and mind to 
start providing open access to all their work.”

In addition, she says: “Under the new HEFCE policy, researchers have incentives 
to make their best 4 papers accessible through the gold or green OA route 
(assuming that the REF again requires 4 papers) but they do not have incentives 
to make ALL their papers openly accessible.”

The interview with Dagmara Weckowska can be reader here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-open-access-interviews-dagmara.html

___
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: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Stevan Harnad]

My, what a lot of (pessimistic) speculation based on a survey of
bioscientists’ attitudes after the RCUK policy was announced and before the
new HEFCE/REF policy was announced!

I’d suggest that the speculation about which (and how many) of their
journal articles  UK authors will deposit at acceptance time across the
upcoming six years — to ensure that they will be potentially eligible for
REF2020 — may be particularly unperspicacious.

Lots of conjectures about RCUK mandate compliance, but no apparent mention
of the complementary university mandates that are increasingly being
adopted (and especially about the HEFCE-style Liege model: immediate
deposit required in order to be visible for annual performance review).
Those *cover all research output, funded and unfunded*. And Liege is
reporting near 90% compliance…

Some apparent unawareness of how simple it already is to deposit.

And still way too much talk about (Gold) OA publishing as if that were what
was meant by OA, and what this is all about.

Stevan Harnad

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Richard Poynder <
richard.poyn...@cantab.net> wrote:

> As a result of prolonged pressure from the open access (OA) movement — and
> following considerable controversy within the research community — the UK
> is now embarked on a journey that OA advocates hope will lead to all
> publicly-funded research produced in the country being made freely
> available on the Internet.
>
>
>
> This, they believe, will be the outcome of the OA mandates from Research
> Councils UK (which came into effect on April 1st 2013) and the Higher
> Education Funding Council for England (which will come into effect in
> 2016).
>
>
>
> It has taken the OA movement twelve years to get the UK to this point (the
> Budapest Open Access Initiative was authored in 2002), but advocates
> believe that these two mandates have now made open access a done deal in
> the country. As such, they say, they represent a huge win for the movement.
>
>
>
> Above all, they argue, HEFCE’s insistence that only those works that have
> been deposited in an open repository will be eligible for assessment for
> REF2020 (which directly affects faculty tenure, promotion and funding) is a
> requirement that no researcher can afford to ignore.
>
>
>
> But could this be too optimistic a view? Dagmara Weckowska, a lecturer in
> Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex, believes it may be.
> While she does not doubt that the RCUK/HEFCE policies will increase the
> number of research outputs made open access, she questions whether they
> will be as effective as OA advocates appear to assume.
>
>
>
> Weckowska reached this conclusion after doing some research earlier this
> year into how researchers’ attitudes to open access have changed as a
> result of the RCUK policy. This, she says, suggests that open access
> mandates will only be fully successful if researchers can be convinced of
> the benefits of open access. As she puts it, “Researchers who currently
> provide OA only when they are required to do so by their funders will need
> a change of heart and mind to start providing open access to all their
> work.”
>
>
>
> In addition, she says: “Under the new HEFCE policy, researchers have
> incentives to make their best 4 papers accessible through the gold or green
> OA route (assuming that the REF again requires 4 papers) but they do not
> have incentives to make ALL their papers openly accessible.”
>
>
>
> The interview with Dagmara Weckowska can be reader here:
>
>
>
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-open-access-interviews-dagmara.html
>
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Andrew A. Adams]

The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the 
way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and 
full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was 
involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before 
the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they 
have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material 
uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings 
at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for 
example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming 
visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value 
and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic 
nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.

(*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why, 
butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a 
mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong 
management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a 
spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this 
policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so 
they're unwilling to give it a strong name.

-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Heather Morrison]

Andrew Adams raises an important point from my perspective, and this problem is 
not limited to the UK.

Even though I am a librarian and enthusiastic advocate of self-archiving 
myself, when my library has policies that don't let me upload my work and get 
my URL immediately, my inclination is to hop over to google docs. Hopefully 
I'll continue to remember to cross-deposit in the IR, but in the meantime the 
IR (and the library and the university) are losing out on the highest likely 
time of exposure, when things are current.

A shift to immediate free access for the self-archiving author (unless checking 
specifically requested) could do a lot to facilitate self-archiving, and the 
resulting increase in use of the IR could increase the web metrics and 
perceived value of library, IR and university.

A library service that gave me my URL to freely share my work immediately on 
deposit, with a thank-you note and update on metadata checking at a later date 
is a service that I'd really appreciate. Developing services that people really 
find valuable and enjoy using, in my opinion, would bode well for the future of 
libraries and IRs [speaking as a prof in an information studies program].

best,

Heather Morrison


On 2014-09-22, at 7:35 PM, "Andrew A. Adams" 
mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp>>
 wrote:


The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the
way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and
full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was
involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before
the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they
have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material
uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings
at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for
example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming
visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic
nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.

(*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why,
butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a
mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong
management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a
spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this
policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so
they're unwilling to give it a strong name.

--
Professor Andrew A Adams  
a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
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: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Stevan Harnad]

Andrew is so right.

We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure
reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the
author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the
metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has
"fast lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other
departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.

*Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please
trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this
library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done *after*
the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made
*immediately* OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers'
embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.

Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly,
without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet
their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.

P.S. This is all *old*. We've been through this countless times before.

Dixit

Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on
all sides...

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams  wrote:

>
> The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the
> way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and
> full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was
> involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before
> the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they
> have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material
> uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic
> proceedings
> at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for
> example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming
> visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
> and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic
> nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly
> communications.
>
> (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure
> why,
> butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a
> mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong
> management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a
> spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this
> policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea
> so
> they're unwilling to give it a strong name.
>
> --
> Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/
>
>
> ___
> 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: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Richard Poynder]

I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two 
contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% 
OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that 
researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown 
themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, 
directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers 
appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be 
published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I 
cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories 
and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help 
achieve wish 1. 

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in 
Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

 

Andrew is so right. 

 

We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure 
reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the 
author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata 
in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has "fast lane" 
exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). 
Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.

 

Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust 
those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting 
-- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has 
already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by 
the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks 
to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.

 

Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without 
intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their 
deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.

 

P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before.

 

Dixit

 

Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all 
sides...

 

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp> > wrote:


The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the
way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and
full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was
involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before
the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they
have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material
uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings
at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for
example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming
visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic
nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.

(*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why,
butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a
mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong
management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a
spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this
policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so
they're unwilling to give it a strong name.

--
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp 
<mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp> 
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org <mailto: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: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[brentier]

I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory. 
We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out of the 
way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process of self 
archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind 
of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the deposit which should 
be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if required. 


> Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, "Richard Poynder"  a 
> écrit :
> 
> I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two 
> contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 
> 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so 
> that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers 
> have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in 
> some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK 
> researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will 
> need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not 
> (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so 
> much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way 
> (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1.
>  
>  
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer 
> in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
>  
> Andrew is so right. 
>  
> We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure 
> reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the 
> author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the 
> metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has "fast 
> lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do 
> not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.
>  
> Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please 
> trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library 
> vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit 
> has already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately 
> OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other 
> roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.
>  
> Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, 
> without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet 
> their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.
>  
> P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before.
>  
> Dixit
>  
> Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on 
> all sides...
>  
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams  wrote:
> 
> The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the
> way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and
> full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was
> involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before
> the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they
> have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material
> uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings
> at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for
> example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming
> visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
> and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic
> nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.
> 
> (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why,
> butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a
> mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong
> management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a
> spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this
> policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so
> they're unwilling to give it a strong name.
> 
> --
> Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Me

[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Stacy Konkiel]

+100 to what Richard said.

>> they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the
basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal
judgement. <<

Ah, but what about when the review step is put into place to ensure that
copyright is not violated?

IR Librarians have, unfortunately, become the enforcers of copyright
restrictions at many universities. Somehow, we ended up with the
responsibility of ensuring that we're not opening our uni's up to
liabilities when paywall publishers come a-threatening with their pack of
lawyers because a researcher has made the publisher's version of a paper
available on the IR.

Contrast that with the Terms of Service of websites like ResearchGate and
Academia.edu, who put the onus on the researcher to understand and comply
with copyrights for the papers they upload--and *trust* the researchers to
do so. No wonder we're getting beat at our own game! But I digress.

I agree that library-based IR workflows need a lot of improvement.
Librarians need to start pushing back against legal counsels and
administrators who make us into the gatekeepers/copyright enforcers.

But I take exception to the assertion that we librarians need to step back
and let the grownups figure out OA workflows. We often know just as much as
researchers at our institutions about copyright, OA, IP, etc.

What we need is a partnership to eradicate the barriers to OA that exist at
the institutional/library policy and workflow levels. Oftentimes, library
administrators take what groups of informed researchers have to say much
more seriously than what their rank and file librarians say about things
like OA. We could use your support in tearing down these barriers and
getting rid of awful legacy workflows that restrict access, rather than
this sort of divisive language that suggests we're just dopes who don't get
OA and are making things harder for researchers.


Respectfully,
Stacy Konkiel


Stacy Konkiel
Director of Marketing & Research at Impactstory <http://impactstory.org/>:
share the full story of your research impact.
  working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA
@skonkiel <http://www.twitter.com/skonkiel> and @Impactstory
<https://twitter.com/ImpactStory>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM,  wrote:

> I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory.
> We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out
> of the way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process
> of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality
> or any kind of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the
> deposit which should be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if
> required.
>
>
> Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, "Richard Poynder" 
> a écrit :
>
> I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two
> contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near
> 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so
> that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers
> have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in
> some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of
> UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles
> will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (
> http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done
> so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of
> the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska,
> lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
>
>
>
> Andrew is so right.
>
>
>
> We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure
> reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the
> author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the
> metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has
> "fast lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other
> departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.
>
>
>
> *Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please,
> please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this
> library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done *after*
> the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made
> *immediately* O

[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Heather Morrison]

Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in 
Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

Andrew is so right.

We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure 
reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the 
author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata 
in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has "fast lane" 
exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). 
Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.

Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust 
those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting 
-- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has 
already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by 
the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks 
to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.

Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without 
intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their 
deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.

P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before.

Dixit

Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all 
sides...

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams 
mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp>> wrote:

The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the
way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and
full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was
involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before
the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they
have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material
uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings
at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for
example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming
visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic
nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.

(*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why,
butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a
mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong
management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a
spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this
policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so
they're unwilling to give it a strong name.

--
Professor Andrew A Adams  
a...@meiji.ac.jp<mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp>
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[Arthur Sale]

Heather

 

It is not as easy as that, unfortunately. The university is a party to what
happens in the case of copying/deposit/’publication’ by virtue of creating
an institutional repository, not to mention a mandate policy. (Different for
deposit in Arxiv.) The situation is made more complex when the person
committing the alleged misdemeanor is an employee, thereby invoking the
rights of other employees to a safe and secure workplace. Students have
different rights.

 

While many academics think they ‘own’ copyright as of right, if they check
they often find this is a convention by the employer (and in these days of
long author lists, all of the employers jointly), not a legal right.

 

Unfortunately, universities have become more managerial in the last decades,
and with this comes bureaucracy, caution, conservatism and unwillingness to
risk any form of litigation. Sad, but true.

 

If you want researchers to be personally responsible for copying and/or
deposit (in a legal sense), this opens up a huge can of worms much larger
than open access! Of course, I know that copyright laws are not the same
worldwide, but I think I am on safe ground asserting that most researchers
are happy to maintain the accuracy of their publications, but they would not
wish to support this with cash for legal fees.

 

Arthur Sale

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Wednesday, 24 September, 2014 6:39
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer
in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

 

Universities do not, and should not, assume liability for what others may do
on their premises, whether physical or virtual. If someone commits a crime
on campus such as stealing personal property, it is the fault of the thief,
not the university. 

 

Responsibility for copyright should rest with the person copying. One reason
I think this is especially important with scholarly communication is because
if publishers wish to pursue their copyright it will be more effective to
achieve change if the push is direct from publisher to author, not with
library or university as intermediary. 

 

Publishers may be more reluctant to threaten authors than universities.
However if they choose vigorous pursuit of their copyright directly with
authors I expect that this will help authors to understand the system and
channel their frustration where it belongs, to transform the system instead
of shooting the messenger (library / university).

 

best,

 

Heather Morrison


On Sep 23, 2014, at 3:43 PM, "Stacy Konkiel"  wrote:

+100 to what Richard said.

 

>> they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis
of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal
judgement. << 

 

Ah, but what about when the review step is put into place to ensure that
copyright is not violated? 

 

IR Librarians have, unfortunately, become the enforcers of copyright
restrictions at many universities. Somehow, we ended up with the
responsibility of ensuring that we're not opening our uni's up to
liabilities when paywall publishers come a-threatening with their pack of
lawyers because a researcher has made the publisher's version of a paper
available on the IR. 

 

Contrast that with the Terms of Service of websites like ResearchGate and
Academia.edu, who put the onus on the researcher to understand and comply
with copyrights for the papers they upload--and *trust* the researchers to
do so. No wonder we're getting beat at our own game! But I digress.

 

I agree that library-based IR workflows need a lot of improvement.
Librarians need to start pushing back against legal counsels and
administrators who make us into the gatekeepers/copyright enforcers. 

 

But I take exception to the assertion that we librarians need to step back
and let the grownups figure out OA workflows. We often know just as much as
researchers at our institutions about copyright, OA, IP, etc. 

 

What we need is a partnership to eradicate the barriers to OA that exist at
the institutional/library policy and workflow levels. Oftentimes, library
administrators take what groups of informed researchers have to say much
more seriously than what their rank and file librarians say about things
like OA. We could use your support in tearing down these barriers and
getting rid of awful legacy workflows that restrict access, rather than this
sort of divisive language that suggests we're just dopes who don't get OA
and are making things harder for researchers.

 

 

Respectfully,

Stacy Konkiel

 




Stacy Konkiel

Director of Marketing & Research at  <http://impactstory.org/> Impactstory:
share the full story of your research impact.

  working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA

 <http://www.twitter.com/skonkiel> @skonkiel and
<http