On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Lucie Burgess < [email protected]> wrote:
> I think it’s worth noting that HEFCE has in fact changed its policy to > ‘the published version’ rather than the author accepted manuscript for open > access articles published under the ‘gold’ route, hence delaying open > access to the article until it is published. See: > http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/Year/2015/CL,202015/ and scroll to the > heading ‘gold open access outputs’. > More's the pity. But the lost OA time is the author's, since the Gold OA articles have no OA embargo. Nothing changes for articles published in subscription journals. (But it's still a waste of money to pay for pre-Green Fool's Gold -- and now a waste of time too.) > And PURE is not the only CRIS system being adopted by UK universities to > help them manage the administrative burden of the REF or reporting and > statistics required by many funders to support compliance. > The problem is not the CRIS (which is just a record-keeping system, completely compatible with immediate institutional full-text deposit in the institutional repository); the problem is *outsourcing the CRIS function to publishers.* In-house CRIS's are an excellent complement to institutional repositories. Stevan Harnad University of Southampton > Lucie Burgess > Associate Director for Digital Libraries > Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford > Clarendon Building, Broad Street, Oxford > Senior Research Fellow, Hertford College > Tel: +44 (0)1865 277104 > +44 (0)7725 842619 > Twitter @LucieCBurgess > LinkedIn LucieCBurgess > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6601-7196 > Get ready for the REF – Act on Acceptance > <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/home-2/act-on-acceptance/> > > > > > From: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <[email protected] > > > Date: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 16:09 > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <[email protected]> > Subject: [GOAL] PURE nonsense > > > PURE is a Trojan Horse from Elsevier > <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure> that (some) UK institutions > have allowed to enter their portals. It is a trick, by Elsevier, to > insinuate themselves into and retain control of everything they can: > access, timing of access, fulfillment of mandates, research assessment, > everything. The ploy was to sneak in via CRIS’s, which are systems for > institutions wishing to manage and monitor their metadata on all their > functions. > > Notice that the following passage from KCL's OA Policy > <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/governancezone/Assets/InformationPolicies/Open%20Access%20Policy.pdf> > makes no mention of timing: > > In internal evaluation procedures it will be expected that all >> publications considered as part of appraisal or promotional assessments, >> will have a metadata record in the Research Information System, Pure, with >> either the full text article attached and downloadable from the Research >> Portal, or a link to the Open Access article on the journal’s web site. > > > What Pure is in reality designed to do is to make sure that *the full > text is not openly accessible until after the publisher embargo on Open > Access*. > > In point of fact, the battle for OA has long shifted to the arena of > timing: The 1-year (or longer) embargo is the one to beat. Access after the > embargo elapses is a foregone conclusion (publishers have already > implicitly conceded on it, without overtly saying so). But *access > embargoed for 12 months is not OA*. Publishers want to make sure (1) > there is no OA before the embargo elapses, (2) the embargo is as long as > possible, and even after the embargo, (3) access should be via the > publisher website, or at least controlled in some way by the publisher. > > That’s exactly what PURE + CRIS does. > > And (some) UK institutions (under pressure from Finch’s fatal foolishness > — likewise originating from the publisher lobby) have been persuaded that > PURE will not only provide all the OA they want, but will take a lot of > other asset-management tasks off their shoulders. > > It’s a huge scam, masquerading as OA, and its only real function is to > strengthen the perverse status quo — of ceding the control of university > research access to publishers — even more than they had before. > > It won’t succeed, of course, because HEFCE/REF2020 has nailed down the > timing of full-text deposit as having to be made within 3 months of > acceptance (not publication) for eligibility for REF2020, which a metadata > promissory note from Elsevier will not fullfill. My hope is that > universities will be as anxious as they have been for 30 years now not to > risk REF ineligibility by failing to comply with this very specific > requirement. > > (And the institution’s copy-request Button > <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1110-Importance-of-Request-Copy-Button-in-Implementing-HEFCEREF-Immediate-Deposit-Policy.html> > will > take care of the rest, as long as all full-texts are deposited within > Acceptance + 3.) > > (I think it was a mistake on HEFCE/REF’s part to state formally that there > is no need to archive the dated acceptance letter that defines the > acceptance date, but again I trust in the anxiety of universities to comply > with REF2020 eligibility requirements to draw the rational conclusion that > is indeed within 3 months of acceptance that deposit must be done for > eligibility, and not 12 months after publication.) > > As you will see from the ROARMAP data below, KCL’s OA policy > <http://roarmap.eprints.org/690/> alone is not compliant with the > requirement for REF2020 eligibility, and the above extract does not change > that one bit! > > Best wishes, > > Stevan > > > King's College London > General > Country: Europe > Northern Europe > United Kingdom of Great Britain and > Northern Ireland <http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/country/826.html> > Policymaker > type: Research organisation (e.g. university or research institution) > Policymaker > name: King's College London Policymaker URL: > http://www.kcl.ac.uk/index.aspx Policy URL: > http://www.kcl.ac.uk/governancezone/InformationPolicies/Open-Access-Policy.aspx > Repository > URL: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/ Policy adoption date: 16 July > 2012 Source of policy: Administrative/management decision > Policy Terms > Deposit of item: Required Locus of deposit: Institutional Repository Date > of deposit: When publisher permits Content types specified under the > mandate: Peer-reviewed manuscripts Journal article version to be > deposited: Not Specified Can deposit be waived?: Not specified Making > deposited item Open Access: Required Can making the deposited item Open > Access be waived?: Not Specified Date deposit to be made Open Access: When > publisher permits > Other Details > Is deposit a precondition for research evaluation (the 'Liège/HEFCE > Model')?: Yes Rights holding: Not Mentioned Can rights retention be > waived?: Not specified Can author waive giving permission to make the > article Open Access?: Not specified Policy's permitted embargo length for > science, technology and medicine: 6 months Policy's permitted embargo > length for humanities and social sciences: 12 months Can maximal > allowable embargo length be waived?: Yes Open licensing conditions: Other Gold > OA publishing option: Permitted alternative to Green self-archiving Funding > for APCs where charged by journals: Funder provides specific additional > funding for APCs APC fund URL (where available): > http://www.kcl.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/openaccess/funding.aspx > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
