Many thanks to Arthur Sale for posting this. When I saw these (obvious) howlers in the ARC Policy I assumed the policy-makers (or the policy-writers) had fallen asleep at the wheel (and I gave up).
Let's hope that Arthur's firm and confident corrective will be noticed and heeded. The ARC gaffe is nothing compared to the UK's Finch/RCUK gaffe, which was done -- and has since been defended -- with eyes wide shut... Stevan Harnad On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Danny**** > > ** ** > > I believe this AOASG statement contains an error. It states that the ARC > policy applies to all research outputs of an ARC project, including books. > While this can be inferred from the text, it is an extraordinary claim > which will be ineffective and cannot have been intended by the ARC.**** > > ** ** > > Books do not have “less developed mechanisms for open access copyright > clearance than journal articles”. They have better developed mechanisms > for copyright transfer, and greater justification for closed access. There > is no simple parallel between scholarly book publishing and scholarly > journal publishing. The industries are very different, and convergence is > slow in coming though we may be starting on that path.**** > > ** ** > > If the ARC policy extends to books, and according to the AOASG statement > also to ibooks and ebooks, and to a lesser extent but still importantly > book contributions (chapters), then it is easy to predict:**** > > **1. **Very few books will be published as the outcomes of a research > project. Book publishers incur real costs (editorial, printing, stock and > distribution), especially research or review books, and require closed > access to recover costs over much longer timeframes than articles. They > will simply refuse to publish books that are to be made open access, unless > heavily subsidized.**** > > **2. **Very few ibooks will be published as outcomes of a research > project. Although the iTunes policy is that free ibooks (ie open access) > are accepted, most people wanting to publish a research output as an ibook > (.iba format for iPad) will want to recover some of their development cost. > This will be less significant in the less interactive .pub format.**** > > One has to doubt whether the ARC intends such undesirable consequences, > and if it has thought this through. I just mention newspaper articles, > video recordings, music scores, film and play scripts, photographs, > architectural designs, computer programs, patents, and silicon chip > designs, without going into detail.**** > > ** ** > > The statement that “The AOASG particularly commends the ARC for requiring > publications to be made available through institutional repositories” is > also incorrect, or rather overstated. The ARC policy makes it clear that > deposit in a repository is not necessary, if the research output is already > available elsewhere on the Internet in an open access form (for example in > a subject repository, on a website, in iTunes, in an open access journal, > or as an OA article in a hybrid journal). The policy does not mandate open > access journals and similar routes (good), but it does not inhibit their > natural growth either (also good). It sets institutional repositories as > the OA mechanism of ultimate resort, and as a compulsory location for a > metadata record and a pointer to an OA full-text.**** > > ** ** > > One could improve on the ARC policy, of course, in order to improve global > discoverability and shorten the excessive embargo delay. The guidelines > that will back up the policy will be especially valuable, as these will be > more influential on grant recipients than reading between the lines. Just > imagine the effect if the policy had stated:**** > > “the ARC requires that any article publications arising from an ARC > supported research project must be open access and globally discoverable > within a six (6) month period from the date of publication. Discoverability > of the full-text of the publication through Google Scholar is regarded as > proof of meeting this requirement.”**** > > Arthur Sale**** > > University of Tasmania**** > > ** ** > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Danny Kingsley > *Sent:* Monday, 14 January 2013 7:38 AM > *To:* goal@eprints.org; cai...@googlegroups.com; ao...@mailman.anu.edu.au > *Subject:* [GOAL] Statement: Australian Open Access Support Group > applauds new ARC open access policy**** > > ** ** > STATEMENT****Australian Open Access Support Group applauds new ARC open > access policy **** > > **** > > The Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG) applauds the Australian > Research Council (ARC) in their implementation of a new open access policy. > **** > > **** > > The ARC posted their open access policy on their website on Monday 7 > January. The ARC Open Access Policy > http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/open_access.htm states:**** > > the ARC requires that any publications arising from an ARC supported > research project must be deposited into an open access institutional > repository within a twelve (12) month period from the date of publication. > **** > > **** > > The AOASG particularly commends the ARC for requiring publications to be > made available through institutional repositories. This method of making > work open access uses the substantial institutional repository network in > place across Australian institutions. It also avoids the potentially costly > result of a mandate that requires publication in open access journals > through the payment of article processing charges.**** > > **** > > This policy differs from the “NHMRC revised policy on the dissemination of > research findings” > http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/policy/dissemination-research-findings(introduced > on 1 July 2012) in two important ways. > **** > > **** > > 1. Unlike the NHMRC policy which only relates to journal articles > resulting from funded research, the ARC policy will apply to all > publication outputs resulting from funded research. This will include books > and book chapters which currently have less developed mechanisms for open > access copyright clearance than journal articles.**** > > **** > > 2. The NHMRC policy took effect from 1 July 2012, and all journal > articles from any funded research (regardless of the grant under which it > was funded) published after that date are required to be submitted within > 12 months of publication to an institutional repository. The ARC policy is > not retrospective, and relates specifically to publications resulting from > the Funding Rules and Agreements released after 1 January 2013. This means > there will be a period of some time between the funding allocation and > publication of the work. This longer implementation period presents an > opportunity to address some of the issues facing researchers who publish in > outlets other than journal articles.**** > > **** > > The AOASG is a consortium of six Australian universities which supports > Australian institutions and researchers by providing information about, and > support for, the development and implementation of open access policies. > The particular issues facing the humanities and social sciences in the open > access debate will be an early focus for the Group.**** > > **** > > Still in early implementation phase, the AOASG will have a web presence > available shortly. **** > > * ***** > > * ***** > > *Dated: 14 January 2013***** > > * ***** > Further information: **** > > Dr Danny Kingsley, Executive Officer AOASG**** > > e: danny.kings...@anu.edu.au p: 02 6125 6839**** > > Australian National University, Charles Sturt University, Macquarie > University, Newcastle University, Queensland University of Technology and > Victoria University**** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
