Good evening!

I don't want to get involved too deeply in such a sterile discussion. It takes 
us nowhere.
I have mandated deposit in my University's repository (ORBi) and since there is 
no way I can force my colleagues to "obey", I have just made official a 
procedure whereby the only publication list being considered in a Liege 
University member's C.V. Is the one produced by ORBi. Simple.

This explains ORBi's success. By the way, the list is different from what you 
see on line in ORBi. It rearranges every publication according to it's status, 
so that there is no longer a need to sort everything out as we had to do when 
people were submitting their own publication list.

Of course, this does not solve the question of immediate open access. Only 
those papers published by publishers who agree upon immediate access on line 
are immediately accessible on line. The others must be immediately deposited 
but cannot be seen fully upon publication. They must await the end of the 
publishing house's embargo period, 6 months for most of them. Meanwhile, the 
title and metadata appear on any search engine by keywords, authors' names, 
University, etc. and a single click sends a requests to the author. There are a 
few minutes to a few hours before the last author version is being sent, it 
depends on the author's availability and response time. Usually less that 24 
hours unless the author is on a weeklong trek in Nepal.

I don't want to look overly proud of my accomplishments and those of my ORBi 
team, but if I search for Peter Murray-Rust's publications in Cambridge's IR, I 
can neither search by author nor by publisher, nor can I tell what is OA from 
what is not. It would be nice of him to get things working a little bit at home 
before pointing at what he considers our shortcomings. May I ask him how many 
papers he published with ACS, how many of these are OA and how can I access 
them? Same for the entire University of Cambridge?

To answer the question asked earlier today, anybody can find easily that ORBi 
hosts 398 papers published by ACS, 375 are with full text (ORBi is programmed 
to refuse postings if they are not accompanied by full text, except for 
publications older than 2002) and 59 of those 375 are with full text and fully 
accessible. The 316 remaining ones will be directly accessible when ACS' very 
long embargo period will be over.

Compliance is not zero. It is very high, at first because of the soft but firm 
coercitive top down pressure, nowadays because our authors have fully realised 
the very much larger readership it provides them with and the citation 
advantage they benefit from. My most reluctant colleagues have now become 
ORBi's best advocates.

I consider this a success. OA's worst enemy out there is OA integrism.

Bernard Rentier
Recteur, University of Liege, Belgium

Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:04, Jan Velterop <> a écrit :

> 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. 
> Jan Velterop
> On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:11, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <> wrote:
>> *** The faculty ignore the mandates.
>> This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of withholding grants 
>> and put huge efforts into promoting, still only get 55% compliance.  
>> You have spent > 10 years trying to get effective mandates and they are 
>> hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%.
>> ZERO.
>> Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example, U. 
>> Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there:
>> And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended.
>> Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were willing to 
>> listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in adopting an OA 
>> mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to advice for years, 
>> insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing publisher deposit, and 
>> wasting scarce research money on paying for Gold OA instead of shoring up 
>> their Green OA mandate.) 
>> Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates with 
>> institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing:
>> Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model
>> How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate Institutional 
>> Mandates
>> There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will 
>> self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs 
>> going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money?
>> No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan & John 
>> Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA:
>> Yes - and probably << 5% of VCs care about it. 
>> You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and the 
>> effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits are large, 
>> and the costs are next to nothing: just effective policy-making and 
>> implementation. 
>> My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if we continue as 
>> we are. We have to get much tougher. And university mandates are seen as 
>> next to useless - universities can't police them and it alienates the 
>> faculty.
>> The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler and quicker to 
>> carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the faculty - the less they care, 
>> the easier it is.
>> I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should unite 
>> and take decisive action.
>> I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the reachable, 
>> now, rather than fulminating about the unreachable (especially when reaching 
>> for the reachable, now, is eventually likely to bring more of the 
>> unreachable within reach).
>> Stevan Harnad
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
GOAL mailing list

Reply via email to