On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Neil JACOBS <n.jac...@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> I realise I am stretching the scope of this repositories list perhaps, but > some might be interested in the technical infrastructure needed to > implement Gold OA. A series of invited blog posts has begun here: > http://www.goldoa.org.uk/ > These are intended to prompt discussion specifically about technical > infrastructure (systems, metadata, services, workflows). > I realise, of course, that some might see this as a distraction. > Nevertheless, many universities and others, certainly in the UK, are > interested in solutions for Gold OA. > Please do join the debate. The discussion will inform Jisc, libraries, > publishers, CrossRef and others as we try to improve things. > What UK institutions (and RCUK) need far more urgently than an RCUK compliance mechanism to collect, monitor and disburse the UK funds for Gold double-payments (sic) is an RCUK compliance monitoring mechanism through cost-free Green OA -- and HEFCE/REF<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/openaccess/>have proposed a natural way to accomplish this: 1. HEFCE proposes to make immediate deposit of the final draft of peer reviewed articles in the institutional repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication, a requirement for eligibility for submission to REF 2020. 2. Immediate deposit is required (a) irrespective of whether the deposited draft is made immediately OA or embargoed for an allowable interval, (b) irespective of whether it is published in a subscription journal or a Gold OA journal, (c) irrespective of whether further re-use rights are licensed (e.g., CC-BY). 3. The immediate-deposit would apply immediately, since researchers cannot foresee which 4 articles will prove to be their best (and hence submitted to REF) 6 years hence, and delayed deposit would make the articles ineligible. 4. Hence the natural procedure for each institution is to systematically collect and store the calendar date of the acceptance letter as well as the date of deposit for all articles published. (The former can be made a repository meta-data field; the latter already is.) That done, institutions can go back to counting the gold chicks allotted them by RCUK's golden hen, knowing that their RCUK mandate requirements are already fulfilled via Green. No worries about running out of money to pay for publication. And the added bonus is that if the Gold is not spent on paying publishers even more money than is being spent already for subscriptions, any leftover can now be spent on facilitating and implementing Green OA and monitoring compliance (see replies of Doug Kell to the BIS Parliamentary Select Committee<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/uc1086-i/uc108601.htm>about what can be done with the RCUK Gold OA funds if there is no need to spend them on Gold OA). The natural next step toward global OA will be to integrate institutional and funder mandates worldwide to make them convergent and mutually reinforcing. HEFCE/REF have shown the way to do so. This will also put the UK back into the worldwide OA leadership role it had from 2004-2012 and then lost with the Finch Committee's egregious proposal to mandate paid Gold (by restricting UK authors' right to choose their journals for their quality standards alone, rather than their cost-recovery model, and by redirecting scarce research funds to double-pay publishers for Gold OA instead of just providing cost-free Green OA).
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
