[GOAL] The Metadata Bubble, via SciTechSociety Blog
In my latest blog, I walk on a meandering path through Open Access, Repositories, Metadata, and Expert Systems. Submitted for your consideration and comments... http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-metadata-bubble.html --Eric F. Van de Velde. PS: Please accept my apologies for duplicate listserv postings. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Please Register Your Institutional OA Policy in ROARMAP
University of Reading http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/staffportal/news/articles/spsn-597814.aspx has just upgraded its OA Mandate http://roarmap.eprints.org/584/ to make it compliant with HEFCE Requirements for eligibility for REF2020 http://roarmap.eprints.org/834/ (papers must be *deposited* immediately upon acceptance for publication -- access to deposit must be made open immediately or, at the latest, by the end of the permissible embargo). If your institution has adopted (or upgraded) and OA policy, please register it in ROARMAP http://roarmap.eprints.org to inspire other institutions to adopt and register their OA policies. ROARMAP is also conducting studies, with the help of the data from the new ROAR http://roar.eprints.org database (coming soon) to monitor and record the effectiveness of OA policies in terms of their *deposit rate* (percentage of annual published output that is deposited) and *deposit latency *(when the papers are deposited, relative to publication date). OA Policies differ in their requirements. It is hoped that the comparative data will help institutions that already have an OA policy to monitor and compare its effectiveness with other policy models and will help institutions planning to adopt and OA policy to pick the most effective model. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
At COAR, we have been doing some work to promote the implementation of OA clauses in publishers' licenses. These types of clauses are starting to be requested by institutions and licensing agencies to secure the rights of authors to deposit into a repository, often in order to comply with OA policies. They also relieve the burden of having to look up the policy for each article before depositing. Some of you may have already seen the draft LIBLICENSE Model License language, which I understand has been successfully included in some licenses: Notwithstanding any terms or conditions to the contrary in any author agreement between authors and Licensor, authors who are Authorized Users of Licensee (“Authors” whose work (“Content”) is accepted for publication by Licensor during the Term shall retain the non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free right to use their Content for scholarly and educational purposes, including self-archiving or depositing the Content in institutional, subject-based, national or other open repositories or archives (including the author’s own web pages or departmental servers), and to comply with all grant or institutional requirements associated with the Content. (pg. 2-3) While this may seem like an imperfect solution, it does help bring us one step closer to our goal of open access. Best, Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director, COAR kathleen.shea...@coar-repositories.org www.coar-repositories.org Skype: kathleen.shearer2 +1 514 847 9068 On 2014-09-27, at 8:04 PM, Danny Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.au wrote: Putting aside the tit for tat nature of some of this discussion, one of the big problems for making available works that have been deposited to repositories is the complexity of the copyright compliance. There are the rules imposed by publishers, and then the possibility that the institution or funder has a special Œarrangement¹ with publishers that then override the standard copyright position obtainable from their websites. And sometimes publishers change their rules - like the length of embargo. To add to this there is the confusion over whether the author is under a mandate - which affects the Elsevier situation. Yes, Stevan - I know you argue that Elsevier¹s position is semantics, but nonetheless it adds to the muddiness of the waters here. I wrote about this on 23 May last year: ³Walking in quicksand, keeping up with copyright agreements http://aoasg.org.au/2013/05/23/walking-in-quicksand-keeping-up-with-copyrig ht-agreements/ My conclusion then was: These changing copyright arrangements mean that the process of making research openly accessible through a repository is becoming less and less able to be undertaken by individuals. By necessity, repository deposit is becoming solely the responsibility of the institution.² Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Executive Officer Australian Open Access Support Group e: e...@aoasg.org.au p: +612 6125 6839 w: www.aoasg.org.au t: @openaccess_oz On 25/09/2014 1:46 am, Joachim SCHOPFEL joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr wrote: Here in France, librarians often are more or less unsatisfied with scientists because of lacking awareness, motivation and enthusiasm for open access. In the UK, some scientists seem unsatisfied with librarians because they do their job too carefully. Why not swap them? (I am joking, yet...why not?) :) Le Mercredi 24 Septembre 2014 16:29 CEST, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca a écrit: Thanks for defending the profession, Jean-Claude and I think you've made some important points. However, there is nothing with service. Providing good service does not make one a servant. 20% of the work of an academic is commonly formally described as service. One could also describe teaching and research as service activities. A good leader of the country serves the country. If librarians are and should not be servants (I agree with this), nevertheless the library itself is a service, and it will be easier for libraries to make the case to sustain and grow their support if the library is perceived as a useful and valued service, IMHO. Many libraries fully understand this, and I am familiar with examples of libraries that excel in both service to their universities or colleges and academic service to their profession. The obligation to consider service true of academic departments and universities, too - if we want to survive and thrive we need to recruit , retain and graduate students and demonstrate the value of their education. My perspective is that it would be helpful to the transition in scholarly communication for librarians and faculty to understand each other better. Following is an overgeneralization that I'd critique in one of my students papers :) Some researchers do not fully appreciate the value of the library profession. Some librarians do not fully appreciate the
[GOAL] FW: Cambridge policy change
Forwarding from the JISC-REPOSITORIES mailing list. -Original Message- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D. Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Cambridge policy change Hi all, Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I can't find an announcement) July: http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/acti on/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to abstract only. The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they haven't updated the Copyright and Repositories agreement, which still lists the old terms: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676 It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had one of the better self-deposit policies. - Andrew Gray an...@bas.ac.uk // 01223 221 312 Library, British Antarctic Survey ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: Cambridge policy change
Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Subject: Re: Cambridge policy change Date: October 2, 2014 at 1:54:02 PM GMT-4 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk The new CUP policy is no longer worthy of admiration, but CUP authors can still comply with the HEFCE policy, which only manates immediate-deposit, not immediate OA. And I wish we could stop talking about whether publisher policies are or are not “compliant” with funder or institutional mandates: The institutional and funder mandates are binding on authors and fundees -- the ones receiving the salaries and the funding. Publishers are neither employees nor fundees. Hence they are not mandatees. All they can do is try to block or delay author compliance. But the only way they can do that is by embargoing OA. They have no say whatsoever in the date of deposit of the author’s final draft — only in the date that the deposit is made OA. Hence publisher policy is moot, insofar as HEFCE’s immediate-deposit requierement is concerned. For OA embargo length rules, HEFCE has punted to RCUK. Stevan Harnad On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Lorna Mitchell l.mitch...@rbge.ac.uk wrote: Hello Andrew, This won't help with the wider issues but I can provide some information on when this change happened as CUP contacted colleagues here at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh on the 11th September asking us to agree to this change to the OA policy for our journal, the Edinburgh Journal of Botany. We didn't get any indication as to why they were implementing the change or why they were doing it in the middle of the year. I've replied to CUP on behalf of the Garden querying the change as my reading is that the new policy won't be compliant with the HEFCE policy for the next REF - I'm currently still waiting for a response. Lorna Ms Lorna Mitchell Head of Library Services, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh Tel: +44 (0)131 248 2850 -Original Message- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D. Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Cambridge policy change Hi all, Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I can't find an announcement) July: http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to abstract only. The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they haven't updated the Copyright and Repositories agreement, which still lists the old terms: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676 It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had one of the better self-deposit policies. - Andrew Gray an...@bas.ac.uk // 01223 221 312 Library, British Antarctic Survey This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. -- The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh is a charity registered in Scotland (No SC007983) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: Cambridge policy change
Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Subject: Re: Cambridge policy change Date: October 2, 2014 at 1:34:54 PM GMT-4 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk The author’s final draft should be deposited immediately upon acceptance, regardless of whether STP or HSS. Authors who wish to comply with the 6-month embargo on STM can set access to the immediate-deposit as Restricted Access instead of Open Access during the embargo, and rely on the repository’s copy-request instead. Not depositing immediately conflicts with the HEFCE immediate-deposit mandate for eligibility for REF2020 Stevan Harnad PS Shame on my former publisher, CUP, for this petty back-pedalling... On Oct 2, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Gray, Andrew D. an...@bas.ac.uk wrote: Hi all, Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I can't find an announcement) July: http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to abstract only. The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they haven't updated the Copyright and Repositories agreement, which still lists the old terms: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676 It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had one of the better self-deposit policies. - Andrew Gray an...@bas.ac.uk // 01223 221 312 Library, British Antarctic Survey This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: FW: Cambridge policy change
These changes in policy, appearing in a surreptitious way, not entirely clear, etc., had to be anticipated: they are, alas, one of the most potent weapons against the Green road because they keep confusing the landscape. Rogue publishers achieve a similar goal on the Gold side of things. Publishers do not even have to coordinate among themselves. In fact, the more chaotic the process is, the better it is from their perspective. In my opinion, all mandates should immediately include immediate collection into a dark archive with a button. Then articles could be moved from and to the dark archive as needed. Ideally, some form of metadata should be able to register the changes of policy in such a way that all affected articles in a given repository would be transferred automatically when such changes would be noticed. In fact, more effective metadata, covering more ground than is the case now (for example re-use rights), and more thoroughly implemented in the repositories appears to be urgently needed. -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le jeudi 02 octobre 2014 à 18:31 +0100, Richard Poynder a écrit : Forwarding from the JISC-REPOSITORIES mailing list. -Original Message- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D. Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Cambridge policy change Hi all, Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I can't find an announcement) July: http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/acti on/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to abstract only. The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they haven't updated the Copyright and Repositories agreement, which still lists the old terms: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676 It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had one of the better self-deposit policies. - Andrew Gray an...@bas.ac.uk // 01223 221 312 Library, British Antarctic Survey ___ 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] Re: Cambridge policy change
On Oct 2, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: In my opinion, all mandates should immediately include immediate collection into a dark archive with a button. Hear hear! Immediate-deposit should be the sine-qua-non of all OA mandates: Whatever else the stimulate, they should always include an immediate-deposit clause… and immediate upon acceptance, not upon publication. -Original Message- From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D. Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Cambridge policy change Hi all, Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I can't find an announcement) July: http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/acti on/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608 You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to abstract only. The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they haven't updated the Copyright and Repositories agreement, which still lists the old terms: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676 It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had one of the better self-deposit policies. - Andrew Gray an...@bas.ac.uk // 01223 221 312 Library, British Antarctic Survey ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
