[GOAL] New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

Dear all, This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research funder NWO issued a new tighter Open Access mandate: http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html Best, Jeroen [101-innovations-icon-very-small] scholarly

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

Danny, Some journals like to control the way information is being published about new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred to as the "Ingelfinger rule"

[GOAL] Re: New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

I wonder if there is a competitive opportunity here? If Nature and Science prefer to embargo for a "Nature" or "Science" press release, I can see where this has traditionally been a good service for universities and their researchers. However, in the process of transition to open access, there

[GOAL] Re: New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

Bravo to NWO! I’ve updated the policy in ROARMAP: http://roarmap.eprints.org/241/ Now the only tweak it needs is to make it deposit immediately on acceptance rather than just upon publication (which can be months and months later). SH > On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in conflict with *Nature's* & *Science's* PR practices. (N has a 6-month embargo on OA;

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake wrote: > > Hello Stevan, > > HEFCE does not require immediate OA but it does, very reasonably, > expect immediate 'discoverability' on deposit (i.e. acceptance). > This is where the conflict comes in. The 3 months should be

[GOAL] Re: Insistence by researchers that we do not make metadata available prior to publication for Nature, NEJM and Cell journals

I think this conversation has strayed a little from Danny Kingsley’s original message (as has the subject line). I have reverted to the original title, and attach Danny’s message again at the bottom. As I read it, Danny’s question was not about whether universities can make the full-text