I think this conversation has strayed a little from Danny Kingsley’s original message (as has the subject line). I have reverted to the original title, and attach Danny’s message again at the bottom.
As I read it, Danny’s question was not about whether universities can make the full-text available on acceptance, but whether they can make the metadata discoverable at that point. MRC’s Geraldine Clement-Stoneham replied, “One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach such publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much) information about the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is concerned about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it, but it would deserve a wider conversation.” HEFCE responded to this on Twitter by saying that the matter has been addressed and resolved in its FAQ (5.1) — (https://twitter.com/ersatzben/status/669920110849708032). 5.1 says the following: 5.1. When do outputs need to become discoverable? We would expect outputs to become discoverable as soon as possible after deposit to allow for maximum visibility and use of the deposited work. When depositing on acceptance: If the paper cannot be made discoverable until it is published, the repository record need not become discoverable (‘live’) until publication. In these circumstances, we would expect the output to be discoverable as soon as possible after the point of first publication (including any early online publication), but we encourage early discoverability. For the purposes of reporting, outputs of this nature should be considered to be following Route 2 in the access requirements of the policy. By my reckoning this means that HEFCE acknowledges that neither the paper nor the metadata need be made discoverable at acceptance stage. However, it does not address Danny’s issue so much as confirm that HEFCE accepts publishers’ right to impose such restrictions. HEFCE’s 5.1 also does not address the problem of how repository managers can know what different publishers’ policies are on metadata being discoverable before publication. (Danny believes she needs written confirmation from publishers as to what their policy is. Clearly, it would be better if the information from all publishers was publicly available in one place). More importantly, it does not address Danny’s final point, which was: “If anyone cracks an automated way of finding whether an accepted article has been published (given that hybrid journal articles are poorly indexed and that article titles can change etc.) we would love to hear about it.” This, of course, is a further knowledge problem repository managers appear to face. As a matter of interest, what is the average time span between acceptance and publication? Richard Poynder From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 26 November 2015 23:26 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: [GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hello Stevan, HEFCE does not require immediate OA but it does, very reasonably, expect immediate 'discoverability' on deposit (i.e. acceptance). This is where the conflict comes in. The 3 months should be enough time for publication but sadly this isn't always the case. Nope, it’s deposit of the full-text and “discoverability" of the metadata (Title, author, etc.) on acceptance (+ 3). Nothing whatsoever to do with the Ingelfinger Rule. Difficult to understand how there can be misunderstanding of something so clear and simple. Best wishes, Stevan >> Hi, I have just had a fraught conversation with a researcher who supports open access and what the OA policies in the UK are trying to achieve. But he is saying that we cannot under any circumstances make the metadata available for Nature, NEJM and Cell journals available prior to publication. He said he personally knows that people's papers have been pulled from Nature and NEJM for this reason. He said he became aware of the issue because the details of a recent paper of his that is not yet published turned up in Google Scholar when he was looking for something else (evidence that our are indexing is very good BTW, but that's a separate issue). So this raises a few issues: 1. I think I need to get written confirmation from these journals about what their policy is relating to metadata being available prior to publication - does anyone have anything along these lines they can share? 2. There is a risk that if we start putting articles in these specific journals into a restricted collection and then only making the metadata available that other publishers/journals will change their policies to insist that they too should not have the metadata available earlier. 3. This raises our workflow complexity yet again - we have a standing number of articles that have been deposited but not yet published that sits at over 1200. We now simply check those articles that have been in the pile for more than three months*. So for those articles in the restricted collection there will be no exposure of them until we check that they have been published and move them into the open collection (while the article is still under embargo). 4. Clearly there is a fair bit of bullying going on by the publishers towards the researchers - we need to get evidence and expose this. 5. Do not get me started on the 'one rule for this situation, and a different one for another' palaver that the publishers are putting us through. It gets worse by the minute. Danny *If anyone cracks an automated way of finding whether an accepted article has been published (given that hybrid journal articles are poorly indexed and that article titles can change etc) we would love to hear about it.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
