On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jan Velterop <[email protected]> wrote:
Fred, > > ... It is a matter of interpretation, of course, but I don't think the > Finch Report (HM Gov't) "blocks" the use of institutional repositories. I > don't read that in the report, and it is an interpretation I fail to see as > obvious or inevitable. > "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories… [so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead] be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing, particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…" http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf > But face up to it, subject repositories, such as the superb UKPMC (soon to > be Europe PMC, confusing as that name may be — naming it Enhanced PMC would > have been clearer and reflecting reality more closely) do present so much > more in terms of usability, interoperability, internet connectivity, than > most institutional repositories, that scepticism with regard to the latter > as the preferred venue for open access is understandable. What I don't > quite understand is why institutional repositories don't raise their game. > They could, for instance, easily set up harvesting mechanisms — actually, > linking would suffice — to collect articles relating to their affiliation > from the limited number of subject repositories. > Institutions should *back-harvest* their own research output, because it is deposited in (multiple<http://roar.eprints.org/cgi/roar_search/advanced?location_country=&software=&type=subject&order=-recordcount%2F-date>) institution-external collections rather than in the authors' own institutional repository? Doesn't the reverse (deposit once, institutionally, and let institution-external collections import or harvest) make more sense -- and make for more effective compliance verification (for both institutional and funder mandates)? > And they could enhance the functionality of deposited articles, too. Just > an example: UKPMC makes linking to species, diseases, chemicals, genes, > proteins, and the like possible. That is, in a different way, but still, > also available to content in institutional repositories by using tools such > as, for instance, the freely available Utopia Documents (utopiadocs.com — > which actually offers more internet connectivity for PDFs than most HTML > versions have). I'm sure there are more tools available to increase the > usability of repositories. Why don't repositories tell their users about > them? And why don't repositories convince their depositing authors to > attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscripts being deposited so that the reuse > issues are resolved? If they are indeed the manuscript versions and not the > formally published ones, that shouldn't be a problem. > Research output is not used or searched at the individual repository level but at the harvester level. Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but not if it waits for CC-BY first.) Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly not as urgently as they need access). I haven't seen many efforts in regard of making institutional repositories > work better by any of the 'green' OA advocates known to me, but maybe I'm > reading the wrong lists. > Try reading [email protected] and [email protected] It is crystal clear that one strategy to achieve open access won't yield > 100% success in the foreseeable future. That's why both 'gold' and 'green' > are needed. 'Gold', of course, includes 'green', and 'green' doesn't > include 'gold', but that doesn't mean in any way that 'green' should be > disregarded. It isn't by most 'gold' advocates I know and not dismissed as > 'gold' seems to be by 'green' advocates, unfortunately. And different > fields have different needs that are more likely to be satisfied by one > strategy than the other. In the data-rich physical sciences, 'gold' (CC-BY) > is more likely to give the best results; for the social sciences and > humanities it may well be 'green'. > Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not *require* Gold, nor paying for Gold. Stevan Harnad > Jan Velterop > > > On 9 Oct 2012, at 11:40, Frederick Friend wrote: > > I am grateful to Robert Kiley for clarification of Wellcome’s policy in > a message which – with his permission – is reproduced below: > > ”Can I just make it clear that though the Trust requires publishers to > deposit content which has attracted an APC fee directly in PMC (which is > then mirrored to UKPMC/Europe PMC) we do not pay any extra for this > service? Publishers charge the Wellcome (via the grant holders and their > institutions) the published APC fee. In terms of the fee paid to > publishers, we currently spend around £4m pa on OA publication fees -- this > figure includes publication fees levied by both hybrids and full OA > journals. Compliance with our OA policy is around 60 per cent. Calculations > continue to show that if all WT-funded research was routed via the gold > route, and assuming that the Trust picked up 100 per cent of OA costs (even > though most WT funded research has another funder supporting the research), > at current levels of APC, the cost to the Trust would be between 1.25 > percent and 1.5 percent of our annual research spend. > Hope this helps. Robert.” > > What this extra information tells me is that the payment by Wellcome has > never been a payment to meet the cost of deposit but a payment to the > publisher for access and re-use rights, just as an APC does. Wellcome had > every right to begin to make such payments but the issue remains whether > this model – which Wellcome have the money to pay for – is suitable for > transfer into policies paid for from the national funds for research > administered by the RCs. Spending 1.5% of RCUK funds on APCs may have a > very different effect upon other national research priorities than spending > 1.5% of Wellcome research funds on APCs has upon Wellcome’s priorities, and > we do not even know whether 1.5% of RCUK funds will pay for all RC-funded > UK research outputs. I am still left with the impression that the Wellcome > model has been accepted without question by the Finch Group and then by HM > Government. > > One question which needs to be asked – if this situation is carried > through into all UK research outputs - is what happens to the 40% of > articles not gathered in by this route? The UKPMC deposit rate of 60% is > clearly higher than UKPMC was achieving through author-deposit alone, but > open access statistics show that one open access model on its own cannot > ensure that 100% of research content is made open access. In fact to date > the repository deposit model has been more successful than OA journal > publication in increasing the volume of open access. In blocking the use of > institutional repositories for access to and re-use of current research > output, HM Government has given us a situation where we may be paying more > for less open access. > > Fred Friend > Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL > http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk > > > > *From:* Frederick Friend <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2012 1:01 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs? > > *“Admitting that RCUK was "thinking about" mandatory repository > deposit, Mr Thorley said that one idea was to expand the Europe (formerly > UK) PubMed Central repository, which currently covers only biomedicine, to > encompass all subjects to help publishers automate deposits.” Mark Thorley > of RCUK quoted in an article by Paul Jump in “Times Higher Education” of 4 > October 2012. * > ** > I wonder whose idea this was! I can make one or two guesses, but whoever > suggested it, it is a bad idea! I welcomed the development of UK PubMed > Central, until the point when Wellcome Trust started to pay some publishers > to make the deposit on behalf of authors and funders. I do not know whether > Wellcome will disclose the sums paid to publishers, but my impression is > that whatever is being paid more than covers the cost of making the deposit > and is in effect a payment to publishers for open access and re-use rights. > When people I know who are not in academia ask me about my work and I > explain that I am working for open access to taxpayer-funded research, this > is welcomed by whoever I am speaking to – until I say that many publishers > are asking to be paid by taxpayers for making articles open access, at > which point the welcome from my listener turns to incredulity. Even more > incredulity if I mention the level of payments being requested for APCs. > So, if RCUK were to go down the road of paying publishers to deposit in > Europe PubMed Central, they should be prepared for challenges on such a > mis-use of public money, especially if the deposit payment were to be in > addition to the payment of an APC. Presumably the existing funders of UKPMC > – some of them charities – would also expect a contribution from the > non-biomedical RCs towards the high cost of running Europe PMC. This “idea” > could cost a lot of money. > > I suspect that there will also be objections from subject groups who see > their repository needs as being very different from those of the biomedical > community. How many times in my long career have I heard that other such > all-embracing proposals will not work for subject x or y! UKPMC is a > wonderful service for the biomedical community, a service for which they > are prepared to pay and have the resources to pay, but its design will not > fit all subjects without major modification. Already I hear some concern > about the undue influence of the biomedical community and Wellcome in > particular upon the Finch Report and thus upon Government policy. The > suspicion is that the open access policy of the Wellcome Trust, which works > very well for the Trust and for the biomedical community, is being adopted > for all UK research outputs without consideration of the way the Trust’s > open access decisions can be applied within other very different academic > structures. > > RCUK: please think again! It is good that you are considering mandatory > repository deposit, but there are other repositories which can provide > better value for the service you need. > > Fred Friend > http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
