[GOAL] New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,

This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research funder NWO issued a new 
tighter Open Access mandate:

http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]
  scholarly communication: tools database | 
survey

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
-

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Clement-Stoneham Geraldine]

Danny,

Some journals like to control the way information is being published about new 
papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another embargo, 
nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred to as the 
"Ingelfinger rule" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).

All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that 
coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors as 
the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their paper 
to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature, or 
Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The downside 
of course is that they do act as "gagging orders", which can make it tricky for 
researchers to talk about their research once the paper has been accepted, but 
not yet published (which can go for weeks/months).

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. Less traditional journals such as eLife have 
deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage authors to 
discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be better aligned 
with "open science" principles.

You'll find more details for the journal you named here

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub

and eLife's policy
http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife

Best wishes
Geraldine


Geraldine Clement-Stoneham
Knowledge and Information Manager
Medical Research Council
Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk



This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see 
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm

We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of 
documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
_
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
_
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

[Heather Morrison]

I wonder if there is a competitive opportunity here? If Nature and Science 
prefer to embargo for a "Nature" or "Science" press release, I can see where 
this has traditionally been a good service for universities and their 
researchers. However, in the process of transition to open access, there are 
opportunities for researchers and their employers and funders (universities, 
research organizations and research funders to recapture some of the prestige 
that academia has so graciously gifted to commercial scholarly publishers in 
the past.

A Nature / Science press release reinforces the value and prestige of Nature / 
Science (conferring some reflected glory on researcher and university).

A researcher or university-led press release leading to the university IR 
primarily reinforces the value and prestige of the scholarship and the 
university. This approach has the potential to attract more / better 
researchers and students and support for the important work of universities and 
research funding agencies.

Just a thought!

Heather Morrison

On 2015-11-26, at 7:31 AM, "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" 
> wrote:

Dear all,

This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research funder NWO issued a new 
tighter Open Access mandate:

http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html

Best,
Jeroen


  scholarly communication: tools database | 
survey

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
-

___
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: New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

[Stevan Harnad]

Bravo to NWO! I’ve updated the policy in ROARMAP: 
http://roarmap.eprints.org/241/

Now the only tweak it needs is to make it deposit immediately on acceptance
rather than just upon publication (which can be months and months later).

SH

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research
> funder NWO issued a new tighter Open Access mandate:
>  
> http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html
>  
> 
>  
> Best,
> Jeroen
>  
>  
>   
> scholarly communication: tools database  | 
> survey 
> 
> Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
> Utrecht University Library 
> email: j.bos...@uu.nl 
> telephone: +31.30.2536613
> mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
> visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
> web: Jeroen Bosman 
> 
> twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
> -
>  
> ___
> 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: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Stevan Harnad]

1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in
conflict with *Nature's* & *Science's* PR practices. (N has a 6-month
embargo

on OA; S has none

.)

2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for
N & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it
is not).

3. This "Ingelfinger Rule " (designed to
enhance paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored
in the breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR
rather than substance, especially in the online era.

SH

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine <
geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Danny,
>
>
>
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime
> referred to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).
>
>
>
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to
> authors as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to
> submit their paper to them. This explains why you often see papers
> published in Nature, or Science, all making the headlines of daily press on
> the same day. The downside of course is that they do act as “gagging
> orders”, which can make it tricky for researchers to talk about their
> research once the paper has been accepted, but not yet published (which can
> go for weeks/months).
>
>
>
> 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. Less traditional
> journals such as eLife have deliberately done away with such embargo, and
> indeed encourage authors to discuss their research as soon as they wish,
> which seems to be better aligned with “open science” principles.
>
>
>
> You’ll find more details for the journal you named here
>
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
>
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
>
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub
>
>
>
> and eLife’s policy
>
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geraldine
>
>
>
>
>
> *Geraldine Clement-Stoneham*
>
> Knowledge and Information Manager
>
> Medical Research Council
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
>
> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
>
> geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see
> http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm
>
> We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of
> documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
> _
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>
> ___
> 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: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake  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

> 
> All the best,
> Thom
> ​-- 
> Thom Blake
> Research Support Librarian
> Information Services
> University of York
> LFA/215 Harry Fairhurst Building
> Heslington, York, YO10 5DD
> +44 (0)1904 324170
> ORCID: -0001-5507-9738
> 
> 
> Web: www.york.ac.uk/library/info-for/researchers/ 
> 
> Email disclaimer: http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm 
> 
> 
> On 26 November 2015 at 17:21, Stevan Harnad  > wrote:
> 1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in 
> conflict with Nature's & Science's PR practices. (N has a 6-month embargo 
> 
>  on OA; S has none 
> .)
> 
> 2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for N 
> & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it is 
> not).
> 
> 3. This "Ingelfinger Rule " (designed to enhance 
> paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored in the 
> breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR rather 
> than substance, especially in the online era.
> 
> SH
> 
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine 
>  > wrote:
> Danny,
> 
>  
> 
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about 
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another 
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred 
> to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule 
> ).
> 
>  
> 
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that 
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors 
> as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their 
> paper to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature, or 
> Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The 
> downside of course is that they do act as “gagging orders”, which can make it 
> tricky for researchers to talk about their research once the paper has been 
> accepted, but not yet published (which can go for weeks/months).
> 
>  
> 
> 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. Less traditional journals such as eLife 
> have deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage authors 
> to discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be better 
> aligned with “open science” principles.
> 
>  
> 
> You’ll find more details for the journal you named here
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html 
> 
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo 
> 
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub 
> 
>  
> 
> and eLife’s policy
> 
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife 
> 
>  
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Geraldine
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Geraldine Clement-Stoneham
> 
> Knowledge and Information Manager
> 
> Medical Research Council
> 
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
> 
> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
> 
> geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> This 

[GOAL] Re: Insistence by researchers that we do not make metadata available prior to publication for Nature, NEJM and Cell journals

[Richard Poynder]

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: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 26 November 2015 23:26
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

 

 

On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake  > 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