[GOAL] Re: Open Access Network Austria (OANA): 16 Recommendations for 100% Open Access in 2025

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Reckling, Falk 
wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> a working group of the Open Access Network Austria (OANA) has published 16
> recommendations how to shift the academic publication system in Austria to
> full (Gold) Open Access until 2025, see here:
> http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34079
>
>
>
> We are very thankful if you could share the paper with your communities.
>
>
>
> Feedback is very welcome !
>
>
>
> In addition to that and as the first public funding agency, the Austrian
> Science Fund (FWF) now supports the Open Library of Humanities (OLH):
> https://about.openlibhums.org/2015/11/30/austrian-science-fund-fwf-commits-to-four-years-of-funding-for-olh/
>
>

Bravo! And now here are the 16 OANA recommendations re-ordered by order of
priority so that they will actually work! -- SH

*(10) [MANDATE AND] Support self-archiving*

>From 2016 onward, until complete conversion to Open Access publication
(Gold Open Access),


*(9) Registration of repositories*

By 2018, all research organisations should have publicly accessible and
internationally registered repositories.


*(15) Monitoring during implementation*

A target of 80% (Green and Gold Access) of the total publication output
should be achieved by 2020 and 100% Gold Open Access should be achieved by
2025 for all academic publications in Austria. This should be accompanied
by a monitoring process of the BMWFW (Federal Ministry of Science, Research
and Economy).


*(1) Introduce Open Access policy*

By 2017, all research and funding organisations financed by public sources
should officially adopt and implement their own Open Access Policy and sign
the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
Humanities. From 2020 onward, the Open Access Policy should be obligatory
for all members of the institutions.

*(2) Create cost transparency*

>From 2016 to 2018, research and funding organisations should provide a
comprehensive and transparent overview of the costs of the current
publication system. On this basis, a permanent group of experts should be
established. One of their tasks will be to coordinate the research and
funding organisations by monitoring the costs of publication.

*(3) Reorganise publishing contracts*

(a) From 2016 onward, license agreements with publishers should be
concluded in a manner that the research publications of authors from
Austria are automatically published Open Access. (b) All contracts from
2020 onward should include this clause. (c) Contracts and prices should be
made public. (d) In their negotiations with publishers, the Austrian
Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ) should be supported by the executives of
the research organisations.

*(4) Introduce publication funds*

By 2018, all research and funding organisations should establish
transparent publication funds to cover author fees for Open Access.

*(5) Reorganise publication venues*

When scholarly publication venues are funded by public resources, the
funding conditions should be such that the publication venues can be
transformed to Open Access at the latest from 2020 onward.

*(6) Merging the publication infrastructure*

Until 2020, research policy-makers should provide financial incentives
which, by pooling resources, will permit the establishment of
inter-institutional publication structures for publishing high-quality
international Open Access venues in Austria.

*(7) Support international cooperation*

>From 2017 onward, all research and funding organisations in Austria should
participate jointly in international initiatives that promote high-quality
non-commercial publication models and infrastructures.

*(8) Provide start-up capital*

Public funds – as start-up capital - should be available to commercial
providers who want to switch to Open Access or plan new start-ups. This
step will enable some providers from Austria to establish themselves on the
international market.

secondary publishing of quality-tested articles should be actively pursued
(Green Open Access).

*(11) Offer training programmes*

>From 2016 onward, all research organisations should prepare and provide
training programmes for Open Access and Open Science.

*(12) Acknowledging Open Access / Open Science*

>From 2018 onward, Open Access and Open Science activities should always be
honoured in the curricula of scholars of all fields, and alternative
evaluation systems should be taken into account.

*(13) Expand the scope of the copyright reform of 2015*

Austrian legislators should modify the copyright law by 2018 so that,
independent of the form and place of publication, authors of scholarly
publications will have the right to place their publication in a repository
and render the original version of their publication freely accessible
after a maximum embargo period of 12 months. Furthermore, large bodies of
data should be made available for scholarly purposes with no restrictions
in terms of search, networking 

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier OA license page: CC-BY-NC-ND includes text and data mining and reuse rights

[Virginia Barbour, Executive Officer, AOASG]

Dear Heather,

This is a really interesting issue that you raise.
You point out that  Elsevier is requiring authors to grant an exclusive
publishing license for publishing CCBY.
see here
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/99668/Sample_-JPLA_CC-BY-4-0.pdf

I've discussed this here with Tom Cochrane and others and our feeling is
that by doing this Elsevier appears to be arguing, with the agreement
document, a separate sets of rights. While wanting exclusive control
through the “publishing” right, they are providing for a “scholarly
communication” right where CC-BY applies. This is a development of a recent
line of argument, and seems to be based on a proposition that “scholarly
communication” and “publishing” are different activities, that is different
to the extent that contradictory controls on powers of dissemination of the
same material can be applied. The legal logic of this is worth closer
scrutiny since it sets precedents that should not be unchallenged.

Best wishes
Ginny

Dr Virginia Barbour
Executive Officer, Australasian Open Access Support Group - AOASG
Brisbane, Australia
ORCID : -0002-2358-2440

*web*: http://aoasg.org.au/
*email:* e...@aoasg.org.au
*twitter*: @openaccess_oz
*skype:* ginnybarbour

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> As of today, the interpretation of CC licenses on Elsevier's web page
> notes only two differences between CC-BY and CC-BY-NC-ND. The right to sell
> or re-use for commercial purposes is Yes for CC-BY and No for CC-BY-NC-ND.
> The right to translate is Yes for CC-BY and Yes - for private use only and
> not for distribution.
>
> Text and data mine, and Reuse portions or extracts from the article in
> other works, are both Yes for CC-BY-NC-ND.
>
> From:
>
> https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/open-access-licenses
>
> Comments:
>
> This is an interesting and generally positive development from Elsevier.
> Note that this is not the full picture. The CC license terms and conditions
> are found in the Creative Commons legal code, unless Elsevier has another
> way of granting additional specific rights. Is this the case? Let's look at
> the Elsevier author sample author agreement for CC-BY. Excerpts:
>
> "License of publishing rights
>
> I hereby grant to the Journal an exclusive publishing and distribution
> license in the manuscript identified above and any tables, illustrations or
> other material submitted for publication as part of the manuscript (the
> “Article”) in all forms and media (whether now known
> or later developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full
> term of copyright, effective when the Article is accepted for publication.
> This license includes the right to enforce the rights granted by this
> license against third parties and to sublicense such rights.
>
> Under Scholarly Communication Rights: As the author of the Article, I
> understand that I shall have the same rights to reuse the Article as those
> allowed to third party users (and the Journal) of the Article under the
> CC-BY License.
>
> Under Use Rights: The publisher will apply the Creative Commons
> Attribution-4.0 International License (CC BY) to the Article where it
> publishes the Article in the journal on its online platforms on an Open
> Access basis"
>
> From:
>
> https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/99668/Sample_-JPLA_CC-BY-4-0.pdf
>
> Comments and questions: this looks to me like a form of author nominal
> retention of copyright which is actually a full transfer of rights under
> copyright to the publisher. The author's downstream rights are as a third
> party. Although this might appear to be an author CC-BY license, I think a
> strong argument can be made that this is a publisher CC-BY license. There
> is nothing in either the CC license or the author agreement that commits
> the publisher to make the work freely available on an ongoing basis.
>
> If authors are using this approach to make their work open access, my
> advice is to make use of those third party rights to self-archive your work
> in both institutional and disciplinary repositories to maximize the
> probability that the work will remain open access.
>
> The Elsevier sample user license for CC-BY-NC-ND makes no commitment to
> provide downstream users with text and data mining or re-use rights:
>
> https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/99669/Sample_-JPLA_CC-BY-NC-ND-4-0.pdf
>
> This is a learning curve for everyone, and this critique is intended to
> help note areas that still require work. My own perspective is that no
> special permission should be needed for text or data mining (this is just
> automated reading; if anyone has copyright laws prohibiting this, fix your
> copyright laws). It is not clear to me whether all CC licenses should
> necessarily grant permission for re-use of extracts. This can be
> problematic with respect to third party works and could have 

[GOAL] Re: WoS, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and finding OA papers and their proportion

[Dirk Pieper]

In order to get a complete picture as possible we are using WoS - we can´t 
afford Scopus in addition -, our repository and publisher APIs. We know it´s 
not perfect, but it´s the best we think we can do now. Especially when you can 
manage to get those publications into your repository, which have not been 
indexed in WoS or have been published with publishers which don´t offer APIs, 
the repository becomes very useful.

Best,

Dirk 

Am 29.11.15 14:35 schrieb Stevan Harnad  :
> 
> 
> In “Web of Science, Scopus, and Open Access: What they are doing right and 
> what they are doing 
> wrong(https://awayofhappening.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/web-of-science-scopus-and-open-access-what-they-are-doing-right-and-what-they-are-doing-wrong/)”
>  Ryan Regier discusses the current capacities and limitations of WoS,SCOPUS, 
> Google Scholar in finding OA papers and their proportions (OA/total). Most of 
> the discussion is about Gold OA, but Regier notes that GS can be used for 
> Green OA, though inefficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that the way to find just about all OA articles and to calculate 
> the proportion of a university’s total articles that are OA is not to (1) 
> seek them or (2) their proportion in WoS or SCOPUS. That way, the only OA 
> articles you’ll find are the Gold OA ones, and their proportion. 
> 
> Yes, google scholar (GS) is the way an individual researcher can find OA 
> articles on a particular topic, and yes the search, as well as the 
> calculation of the proportion has to be done by hand (to see which hits have 
> an OA version). This is much more useful than WoS or SCOPUS, because it 
> covers Green OA too, but it requires a lot of manual work that could be 
> reduced as soon as GS does a little tweaking of data and metadata it already 
> has (author name, institution, pub date), even to an approximation. 
> 
> Already (to a very crude approximation) I can get all the GS articles on 
> “slender loris” (3200) narrow it down to 2014-2015 (198) or to (“slender 
> loris” “university of illinois”) (42) or to (“slender loris” “university of 
> illinois”) 2014-2015 (2).
> 
> Combining WoS or SCOPUS data and GS I could also get an approximate estimate 
> of OA/total output, for an individual university, per year, without reaching 
> the GS robot limit for an institution.
> 
> Tedious. inefficient, and very approximate, admittedly, but a taste of what’s 
> to come (and what GS can and will make much easier and more efficient) — once 
> universities and funders do their part, which is to adopt strong, effective 
> Green OA mandates.
> 
> Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière, 
> Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016) Estimating Open Access Mandate 
> Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score(http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/). Journal 
> of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) (in press)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Open Access Network Austria (OANA): 16 Recommendations for 100% Open Access in 2025

[Reckling, Falk]

Dear Colleagues,

a working group of the Open Access Network Austria (OANA) has published 16 
recommendations how to shift the academic publication system in Austria to full 
(Gold) Open Access until 2025, see here: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34079

We are very thankful if you could share the paper with your communities.

Feedback is very welcome !

In addition to that and as the first public funding agency, the Austrian 
Science Fund (FWF) now supports the Open Library of Humanities (OLH): 
https://about.openlibhums.org/2015/11/30/austrian-science-fund-fwf-commits-to-four-years-of-funding-for-olh/

Kind regards
Falk Reckling
___
Falk J. Reckling, 
PhD
Strategic Analysis
Department Head

Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
Sensengasse 1
A-1090 Vienna

Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
Mobile: +43-664-5307368
Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
Twitter: FWFOpenAccess
ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766





NEW: Online-Magazin http://scilog.fwf.ac.at
Follow us: www.twitter.com/fwf_at
Also see: www.twitter.com/FWFOpenAccess
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal