Confirmation of Arxiv author practice regarding preprints, postprints,
refereeing and revisions. (Common sense already said as much.) Now it would
be good if authors in other fields (as well as repository managers)
exercised some common sense too...
SH
-- Forwarded message --
From
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Graham Triggs wrote:
And if they remain closed access forever, what has been achieved [by
> mandating immediate deposit]?
>
(1) "They" will not remain closed access, since about 60% of journals
already endorse making the immediate-deposit immediately OA and about
r 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:
n by private
> correspondence from Petr Knoth.)
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> -Original Message-
> From: <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> goal-boun...@eprints.org [
> <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of
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 a
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
equivalen
ed every
> > REF-relevant publication they have produced. Outside EPrints
> > responsibility, apart from producing lists on demand for certification.
> >
> > I just adapted this from your constraints on gold, and common Australian
> > practice
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
mon Australian
> practice in the ERA and HERDC, which have long been audited.
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
> Tim Brody
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013 8:45 PM
> To: Globa
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Tim Brody
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013 8:45 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access
Mandate
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 08:05 -0400, S
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 08:05 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Graham Triggs
> wrote:
>
>
> 2) By definition, everything that you require to audit Gold is
> open, baked into the publication process, and independent of
> who is being audited.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Graham Triggs wrote:
On 16 March 2013 02:15, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> (2) The proposed REF mandate makes it very explicit that *REF submissions
>> are ineligible if they are not deposited immediately upon publication*.
>> (No waiting till near the end of the 6-y
The Australian situation is interspersed - nothing to do with REF and HEFCE,
but our equivalent research evaluation process. I provide this for
comparison.
Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania, Australia
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk]
On Behalf Of
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Graham Triggs wrote:
> On 14 March 2013 22:14, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>> Why is it an absurd requirement to deposit immediately in the author's
>> IR, regardless of whether the
>> journal is subscription or OA and of whether the deposit is embargoed or
>> immedia
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Leslie Carr wrote:
There have already been joint publisher/repository initiatives such as
> PIRUS/COUNTER that deal with this situation. See
> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/pals3/pirus.aspx
>
> "The aim of this project is to develop COUNTER-compliant u
On 2013-03-14, at 6:00 PM, Arthur Sale wrote:
> Unfortunately Stevan, Nick was asking you about the Australian Research
> Council’s policy.
Thanks, Arthur, for pointing out that I had mistaken an ACT policy query for a
HEFCE/REF policy query
(since it was on the HEFCE/REF thread).
Some que
On 2013-03-14, at 1:13 AM, Nick Thieberger wrote:
> But what if the article is in an OA journal that would like to have the hit
> count for
> downloads from its site? Is there scope for the mandate to cover only non-OA
> journal articles perhaps?
That would be an exceedingly bad solution, for
Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access
Mandate
Thanks to Steven Harnad for giving us his enthusiastic view on the
HEFCE prooposd policy for REF and OA. Among my concerns that he
doesn't address, however, is one that will be shared by many/all in
the Humanitie
Dear Larry,
I agree with you.
HEFCE/REF should not not make OA mandatory for books/monographs.
Even deposit need not be mandatory: Merely urged, wherever possible. (I
doubt that there would be many objections to Dark Deposit.)
Insisting on book deposit would, again, be needless over-reaching, a
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Andy Powell wrote:
> Stevan,
>
> Thanks for the response – that makes sense.
>
> ** **
>
> I retain some concerns about our ability to manage expectations and
> deliver a usable overall solution during the transition period (i.e. while
> repositories are f
Thanks to Steven Harnad for giving us his enthusiastic view on the
HEFCE prooposd policy for REF and OA. Among my concerns that he
doesn't address, however, is one that will be shared by many/all in
the Humanities (almost always the Cinderella at the OA ball): What
about books?
Though sci
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Andy Powell wrote:
> Supposing this Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate leads to a
> situation where we achieve 100% immediate deposit of the final
> peer-reviewed draft of journal articles to an institutional repository but
> where we also see a ‘publish
22 matches
Mail list logo
