On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) <j.bos...@uu.nl> wrote:
> As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree > that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as > soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer > review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. > Dear Jeroen, Many thanks for the support. But if what were mandated for deposit were the unrefereed draft rather than the refereed, accepted draft, the effect would be just dreadful! (1) OA's target is the refereed draft (2) Many (perhaps most) authors do not want to make their unrefereed drafts public (3) Peer-review reform is a completely independent issue that has nothing (nothing whatsoever) to do with OA (despite rampant intuitions and speculations) and requires objective, empirical testing, not pre-emptive conflation with OA! Grateful that you added "that's not the point here"! I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make > immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having > serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits > have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to > give those deposits priority treatment. > I agree that that would be better. I just meant that immediate default RA (with the option to make it immediately OA) was already far, far better than authors depositing and then having to wait for the library to decide whether or not to accept, and whether to make access RA or OA. Best, Stevan Harnad > > Best, > Jeroen Bosman > > > > Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft "Stevan Harnad" <amscifo...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder < > ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote: > >> I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two >> contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near >> 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so >> that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers >> have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in >> some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of >> UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles >> will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not ( >> http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done >> so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of >> the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. >> > > Not contradictory at all: > > Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors > to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on > their own. > > We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their > own, * but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a > librarian. * > > This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. > Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made > immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, > > But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on > JISC-REPOSITORIES: > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: > > ... >> For a while I’ve been pondering our process: >> Deposit -> Review -> Live. >> I want to change it to: >> Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request >> button). >> In parallel: >> - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we >> can. >> - Metadata validation/enrichment >> >> Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? >> >> Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library > > Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate > Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it > to Open Acess (OA)) would be *absolutely splendid!* > > (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride > the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library > vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) > > Best wishes, > > Stevan Harnad > > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad >> *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33 >> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, >> lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex >> >> >> >> Andrew is so right. >> >> >> >> We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure >> reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the >> author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the >> metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has >> "fast lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other >> departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. >> >> >> >> *Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, >> please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this >> library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done >> *after* the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has >> already been made *immediately* OA (by the software). Please don't add >> to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous >> ones of your own. >> >> >> >> Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, >> without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet >> their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward. >> >> >> >> P.S. This is all *old*. We've been through this countless times before. >> >> >> >> Dixit >> >> >> >> Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, >> on all sides... >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams <a...@meiji.ac.jp> wrote: >> >> >> The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of >> the >> way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data >> and >> full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was >> involved in early developments around the IR but left the University >> before >> the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they >> have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material >> uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic >> proceedings >> at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for >> example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials >> becoming >> visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value >> and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic >> nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly >> communications. >> >> (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure >> why, >> butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a >> mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong >> management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a >> spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this >> policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea >> so >> they're unwilling to give it a strong name. >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
