Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
Many thanks for the very welcome and useful data about Green OA policy and practise in Australia. To measure compliance with the immediate-deposit requirement, the following would provide an *estimate*: 1. Require immediate deposit of the dated letter of acceptance. 2. Require immediate deposit of the accepted final draft. (You and I know that the publisher's PDF-of-record is superfluous for OA.) 3. Retrieve the institution's published output from WoS monthly (it is updated about monthly) or from SCOPUS via institution-name search 4. Check (via software) each title for whether and when it is deposited (deposit date) 5. Compare deposit date with dated acceptance date. 6. Calculate percentage of monthly output that is deposited, as well as the latency (timing) of the deposit relative to the acceptance date. 7. Calculate proportion and length of OA embargo on deposits 8. Calculate the volume of Request-Button traffic for embargoed deposits (requests, compliances, latencies) No, this is not too complicated nor too demanding (as everyone will of course cry). It's exactly the simple, natural compliance monitoring system that needs to be put into place in order to establish a natural long-term practice, one that ensures that immediate Green OA is always provided. Of course, the institutions and funders need to stand firm on the carrots/sticks: Non-compliance should have consequences. It doesn't take much, because the policy does not ask for much. Once it's a reliable and universal habit, the checks and stats can become less frequent. On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Let me summarize what I know Stevan. > > > > · All Australian universities (even privately-funded ones) can > get federal research grants. As part of the eligibility requirements, all > publicly-funded research has to be collected by each university’s Research > Office and made available for federal audit. In all cases, I believe that > this means deposit of the articles in an Internet-connected server. > Quaintly, we call such objects RODAs (Research Output Digital Assets)! > > · To answer question 1, I do not know. We do at the University of > Tasmania as you would expect (see http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ > ecite/q/ecite_home) but I don’t survey all the others regularly as I used > to do. I would expect about 30-50%. > > · Are the repositories registered in ROARMAP? Again, I don’t > know. However, I will do a post to the Australian OA discussion group (and > copy this email to it). > > · You did not ask, but are they included in the BASE search > engine? I think my university is, but again, this is a question for each > university. As you know they are obstinate and lazy beasts. > > · In the acquittal of each research grant (the final report), the > recipients are supposed to document whether the RODAs were made open > access, and if not to explain why not. I do not know whether this is > complied with or enforced. > > · As far as I know there are no aggregated statistics. Each > university does its own thing. > > > > I attribute this state to (a) you, me and all the other great OA advocates > who have joined the debate over the years, and (b) savvy leaders of our two > Australian research councils, and now including the Chief Scientist who > advises the Prime Minister. We run a community oa email group, but it is > not over-active. > > > > I don’t know about aggregated compliance statistics, and indeed I do not > see how easy it would be to measure them. The question is ‘how do you > measure the whole output to compare with the deposited?’ when everything is > supposed to be deposited? Please have a look at > http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_about, > > > > Best wishes > > Arthur Sale > > > > *From:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@ > JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* Thursday, 12 January 2017 02:06 AM > *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 > > > > > > Dear Arthur, > > > > Thanks for the kind words, and congratulations on 100% self-archiving in > Australia! (I had no idea!) > > > > Although my comment was posted at the point of your contribution to the > thread, I was not actually responding to you, but to various points made in > the thread. I know we agree. > > > > But I do have two questions: > > > > (1) Do the Australian universities use your (our) Button during the OA > embargo? > > > > (2) Are the Australian mandates registered in ROARMAP? (They need to be > known to be amulated.) > > > > (3) Are the compliance statistics available? > > > &
[GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
Forwarding from Jisc Repositories. From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Sale Sent: 12 January 2017 06:27 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 Let me summarize what I know Stevan. * All Australian universities (even privately-funded ones) can get federal research grants. As part of the eligibility requirements, all publicly-funded research has to be collected by each university’s Research Office and made available for federal audit. In all cases, I believe that this means deposit of the articles in an Internet-connected server. Quaintly, we call such objects RODAs (Research Output Digital Assets)! * To answer question 1, I do not know. We do at the University of Tasmania as you would expect (see http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_home) but I don’t survey all the others regularly as I used to do. I would expect about 30-50%. * Are the repositories registered in ROARMAP? Again, I don’t know. However, I will do a post to the Australian OA discussion group (and copy this email to it). * You did not ask, but are they included in the BASE search engine? I think my university is, but again, this is a question for each university. As you know they are obstinate and lazy beasts. * In the acquittal of each research grant (the final report), the recipients are supposed to document whether the RODAs were made open access, and if not to explain why not. I do not know whether this is complied with or enforced. * As far as I know there are no aggregated statistics. Each university does its own thing. I attribute this state to (a) you, me and all the other great OA advocates who have joined the debate over the years, and (b) savvy leaders of our two Australian research councils, and now including the Chief Scientist who advises the Prime Minister. We run a community oa email group, but it is not over-active. I don’t know about aggregated compliance statistics, and indeed I do not see how easy it would be to measure them. The question is ‘how do you measure the whole output to compare with the deposited?’ when everything is supposed to be deposited? Please have a look at http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_about, Best wishes Arthur Sale From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2017 02:06 AM To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 Dear Arthur, Thanks for the kind words, and congratulations on 100% self-archiving in Australia! (I had no idea!) Although my comment was posted at the point of your contribution to the thread, I was not actually responding to you, but to various points made in the thread. I know we agree. But I do have two questions: (1) Do the Australian universities use your (our) Button during the OA embargo? (2) Are the Australian mandates registered in ROARMAP? (They need to be known to be amulated.) (3) Are the compliance statistics available? Best wishes, Stevan Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/> Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.) <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au <mailto:a...@ozemail.com.au> > wrote: Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not need the spray. As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all and 100%, for audit purposes. That’s been the case for many years now. Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are available within the institution on one server, and the academics all comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer. It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada. Best wishes Arthur Sale From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> ] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 06:05 AM To: Global Open Access List (Succes
Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 (Arthur Sale)
Danny, I am reminded here of a paper you wrote in 2013 in which you said: "The requirement to collect information about research output in Australia for ERA [the Australian Excellence in Research for Australia] and HERDC reporting is a double-edged sword. The research community in Australia has adapted to providing this information, albeit not without frustration at the high level of administration involved in compliance. And while some universities consider ERA to have helped the awareness of their repository and open access, overall, the evidence seems to indicate ERA has been detrimental to the promotion of open access in Australia." http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/39/122 Richard Poynder Hi all, Arthur's statements are slightly off kilter. The reason why all research outputs in Australia are collected is because of the requirements for the Higher Education Research Data Collection - HERDC https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-research-data-collection which determines the block grant funding allocation to universities on an annual basis. This has nothing to do with open access. In some instances universities have tied this long standing process into their OA systems, in others they have not. So there are plenty of situations where a copy of the research output is collected, but it is the final pdf (that in most cases would not be able to be made open access anyway) and these are also collected within an internally facing system, so there is no exposure even of the metadata. It is my understanding that there is movement in Australia to make open access more closely tied into this process at a policy level - but that has not happened yet. As someone managing a large UK institution's compliance with very serious mandates at the highest level, I can say that we still have a huge battle ahead. Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Head, Office of Scholarly Communication Cambridge University Library West Road, Cambridge CB39DR P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 <tel:+44%201223%20747437> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 <tel:+44%207711%20500564> E: da...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> T: @dannykay68 B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/ S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939 On 11 Jan 2017, at 08:02, goal-requ...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-requ...@eprints.org> wrote: Send GOAL mailing list submissions to goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to goal-requ...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-requ...@eprints.org> You can reach the person managing the list at goal-ow...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-ow...@eprints.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: OA Overview January 2017 (Arthur Sale) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:38:30 +1100 From: "Arthur Sale" <a...@ozemail.com.au <mailto:a...@ozemail.com.au> > Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 To: "'Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)'" <goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> > Message-ID: <006101d26b92$44c564b0$ce502e10$@ozemail.com.au <http://ozemail.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not need the spray. As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all and 100%, for audit purposes. That?s been the case for many years now. Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are available within the institution on one server, and the academics all comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer. It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada. Best wishes Arthur Sale ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not need the spray. As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all and 100%, for audit purposes. That’s been the case for many years now. Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are available within the institution on one server, and the academics all comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer. It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada. Best wishes Arthur Sale From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 06:05 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: scholc...@lists.ala.org; jisc-repositories Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 Not to put too fine a point on it (and this reminds me why I've tired of the fray): If double-payment for subscriptions (first pay for the research, then pay again to buy it "back") had been a valid argument against having to pay for subscriptions, it would have applied to books too, just as to journals: "Why should institutions pay the cost of researching and writing their books, only to have to buy them "back"? Answer: because books, unlike journal articles, are not author give-aways, written solely for usage, uptake and impact. Books are also written for (potential) royalties (and there might possibly still be some added value in producing and purchasing a hard copy). If the double-payment argument is not valid for books, then it's not valid for peer-reviewed journal articles either. (And this is true no matter what perspective one takes on the "double-payment": the institution, the funder, the funder's funder (the tax-payer) or the whole planet.) The valid argument is that peer-reviewed journal articles are give-away research: No one should have to pay for access to it, neither its author nor its users. The only thing still worth paying for in the OA era is the peer review (Fair-Gold OA). (Preservation is a red herring in this context. So is "journal impact factor.") No lengthy "re-education" program for scholars is needed to enlighten them that they should self-archive all their papers. The message is too simple (and over 20 years seems more than enough for any scholarly "re-education" progamme!) If the diagnosis of laziness, timidity or stupidity does not explain why they don't self-archive, find another descriptor. It's happening, but it's happening far too slowly. And institutional (and funder) self-archiving (Green OA) mandates still look like the only means of accelerating it (and forcing publishers journals to downsize and convert to Fair Gold). (Paying instead pre-emptively for Fool's Gold is unaffordable, unsustainable and unnecessary -- and that's the real double-payment.) Stevan Harnad On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: This is angels dancing on the point of a pin!. Universities subscribe to journals or buy books to either (a) get other people’s research outputs, or (b) to acquire a canonic authorized version of their own research in print. Yes, it sounds silly, but librarians value preservation. If a subscription gives you back some of what you’ve already got, well who cares? Not the author, nor the institution, nor the publisher. I often get freebies that I don’t need, but that does not invalidate my original purchase, nor reduce its value to me. Arthur Sale Also tilling other fields, but not asleep either. Think functionally! -- Arthur Sale PhD Emeritus Professor of Computer Science School of Engineering and ICT | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology University of Tasmania Private Bag 65 HOBART TASMANIA 7001 M +61 4 1947 1331 <http://orcid.org/-0001-7261-8035> http://orcid.org/-0001-7261-8035 cid:CA66235E-F79F-4ECD-A612-0376BD33B152 CRICOS 00586B From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Monday, 9 January 2017 23:14 PM To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Re: OA Overview January 2017 On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:30 AM, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> wrote: SH: (2) No, the institution that pays for the research output is not paying a second time to buy it ba
