On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 08:05 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Graham Triggs > <[email protected]> wrote: >
> > 2) By definition, everything that you require to audit Gold is > open, baked into the publication process, and independent of > who is being audited. The same can not be said for Green. RCUK and HEFCE will require institutions to report on, respectively, the APC fund and REF return. For gold, an institution needs to: 1) Determine whether the journal policy complies with the funder policy. 2) Run an internal financial process to budget for and pay out the APC. 3) Check whether the item was (i) published (ii) published under the correct license. 4) (For REF) take a copy of the published version. For green, an institution needs to: 1) Require the author uploads a version. 2) Make it public after embargo. So, actually I think green is easier to audit than gold. Even if it were as you say, it will still be the institution that is tasked with auditing. For most institutions that will be done through their repository (or cris-equivalent). It therefore follows that green (Do I have a public copy?) will be no more difficult than gold (Do I have a publisher CC-BY copy?). (Commercial interest - as EPrints we have built tools to make the REF return and are working on systems to audit gold and green for RCUK compliance.) -- All the best, Tim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
