Thank you, Stevan, for this useful summary. Now remains the question: how do we multiply mandates and how do we implement them?
Peter has suggested a high-level meeting to create momentum. I support the high-level meeting idea and provided some hypotheses about it that are aimed at boosting the green road. Keith, a member of the board on EOS, is on board. Who else is on board? Is EOS on board? Action, please! Jean-Claude Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 09:21 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER: > > > For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to > and fro on GOAL is about: > > > 1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed > journal articles. > > > 2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles > + certain re-use rights (often CC-BY). > > > 3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their > peer-reviewed final drafts free for all online (either in the author's > institutional repository or website or in an institution-external > central repository) > > > 4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that > provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often > at the cost of an author publication fee. > > > 5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article > output, though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle > physics near 100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest). > > > 6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is > Gold. Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre. > > > 7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher > Green OA rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA > mandates -- and only a tiny proportion of the world's institutions and > funders mandate OA as yet have Green OA mandates at all. > > > 8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require > self-archiving only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: > 60% of journals endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for > embargoes of varying in length from 6-12 months to 5 years or > indefinitely. > > > 9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA: > Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) are the ones that require immediate > deposit of all articles, but if the publisher has an OA embargo, > access to the deposit can be set as "Closed Access" during the > allowable embargo period (preferably no more than 6 months). > > > 10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated > email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for > research purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with > one click. (This is not OA but "Almost-OA".) > > > 11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that > 100% of papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research > purposes, not just the 60% that have publisher endorsement. > > > 12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of > institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA > plus 40% Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the > power and utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to > all researchers, as authors and users. > > > There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should > be designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for > institutional performance review, and funders should mandate > convergent institutional deposit rather than divergent > institution-external deposit.) > > > And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated > by institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of > Libre OA (CC-BY) and Gold OA. > > > All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL > postings are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA. > Only mandates will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does > not confer instant global OA. > > > First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of > the reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach. > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust > <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop > <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Stevan may well be right that the repository > of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620 > chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most > deposits of articles published in > peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are > marked "restricted access" and not accessible > to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out > of scope. So if this is the best example of a > successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust > can be forgiven for getting the impression > that compliance is essentially zero, in terms > of Open Access. > > > > I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This > says: > > > > > > Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and > characterisation of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films > obtained by sol-gel method [ handle:2268/127219 ] > > > Document(s) requested: > Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint > > > > The desired document is not currently available on open > access. Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the > author(s) through the form below. If your request is accepted > you will receive by email a link allowing you access to the > document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum. > > ... > > > > The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that > the electronic copy can only be used for the strict purposes > of illustration and teaching and academic and scientific > research, as long as it is not for the purposes of financial > gain, and that the source, including the author’s name is > indicated. > > > > So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am > not allowed the "Open Access" from Liege. If I represent a > patient group I am not allowed this material. If I am in > government making eveidence-based policy I am not allowed it. > It is the pernicious model that only academics need and can > have access to the results of scholarship. > > As I have said before University repositories seem to delight > in the process of restricting access. > > No wonder that no-one will use this repo. All it seems to do > is mail the author and I can do that anyway (presumably if the > author leaves the uni then the email goes nowhere). > > In today's market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf > instead. I am not condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more > sympathetic to it than repos. > > But I have been told to shut up and I will. I'm slightly > disappointed that no-one is prepared to consider the > possibility we should do something different. > > > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
