[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-14 Thread Jan Velterop
It can be very good to convene a fresh set of minds to tackle the ways to get 
to open access. However, the most important point is to avoid —and reverse — 
the watering down of what open access is and why it is important. The simple 
message that open access means that one can do anything one likes with 
scholarly publications as long as the author is acknowledged has been lost in 
the, at times revisionist, discussions about expediency, concessions to the 
concept of open access, re-labelling and proliferation of qualifiers, etc. 
Back to basics is my device. 

Some disambiguation and comments interleaved in the message to the 'perplexed 
reader' below.

On 13 Jul 2012, at 15:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER:
 
 For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to and fro 
 on GOAL is about:
 
 1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed journal 
 articles.

At the BOAI in 2001, the term open was deliberately chosen to avoid the 
impression that 'free' (= gratis) is enough. The Initiative 
(http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read) says: By open access to this 
literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting 
any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the 
full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to 
software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, 
or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the 
internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the 
only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over 
the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and 
cited.

The crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for 
any other lawful purpose seems subsequently to have fallen out of the 
equation. However, it is essential for academic literature to be called Open 
Access. The term Open Access now appears to have been reduced to essentially 
'free' (gratis) access, exactly what we sought to avoid at the BOAI meeting in 
2001.

 
 2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles + 
 certain re-use rights (often CC-BY).

'Libre OA' is tautological, as 'open' is already 'libre'. The perceived need 
for a term like 'libre access' has only come about because of the adulteration 
of the originally intended meaning of 'open access'.

 
 3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their peer-reviewed 
 final drafts free for all online (either in the author's institutional 
 repository or website or in an institution-external central repository)

Green OA doesn't exist. Gold OA neither. OA is (should be, and was, before it 
was tampered with) unambiguous. 'Green' and 'gold' are just ways that lead to 
OA. Tactics, if you wish. Confusion about the goal and the means to reach the 
goal has reigned for almost a decade now, to the detriment of a clear vision of 
the goal. The way to the goal has become far more important in the discussions 
than the goal itself. That has to be remedied.

 
 4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that 
 provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often at the 
 cost of an author publication fee.

To repeat: gold OA doesn't exist, and green OA neither. Gold is one of the 
means to reach the goal and it mainly involves a shift away from financing 
publishing with subscriptions and replacing it by financing with subsidies, 
either 'by the drink' via author-side article processing fees or directly to 
the journals by institutional, governmental, or funding agency subsidies of 
some kind.

 
 5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article output, 
 though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle physics near 
 100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest).
 
 6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is Gold. 
 Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre.

Apart from the fact that gold OA doesn't exist, the so-called gold method to 
achieve OA is almost all real OA, i.e. 'libre', and not just free (gratis). The 
output of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, Springer Open and hybrid, OUP open and hybrid, is 
all true OA ('libre'), so the statement that almost all gold OA is gratis 
rather than libre needs serious substantiation to say the least.

 
 7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher Green OA 
 rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA mandates -- and only a 
 tiny proportion of the world's institutions and funders mandate OA as yet 
 have Green OA mandates at all.
 
 8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require self-archiving 
 only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: 60% of journals 
 endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for embargoes of varying 
 in length from 6-12 months to 5 

[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-14 Thread Andrew A. Adams

There have been a number of rather aggressive exchanges on this list recently 
 and some of them have contained the accusation that Stevan or one of the 
other Green-first proponents are against Gold or against Libre. I would 
just like to shortly and clearly re-iterate my own position on this which I 
am certain Stevan at least shares (and which I am fairly certain all of the 
other Green-first advocates also share):

CC-BY licensed journals without reader charges are the clear long-term goal 
of OA. Those supporting the Green Mandate route simply claim that so far the 
only route which can be demonstrated by argument to most quickly achieve a 
significant portion of this (restricted licensed access to the author's final 
draft directly for ~60% of papers and via an automated request button for the 
other 40%) is via funder and institutional Immediate Deposit/Optional 
Access mandates.

In replying to arguments putting forth this view, please do not advance the 
claim that anyone advancing it is anti-Gold or anti-CC-BY. We are not, we 
are just realists that change is usually incremental, and this is the only 
incremental step that we can see being possible to persuade academia to take 
in sufficient numbers to get us moving towards the final goal, and to gain us 
a significant benefit in the short term.

-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


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


[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-13 Thread Jan Velterop
Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 
3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles 
published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked restricted 
access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of 
scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter 
Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is 
essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. 

Jan Velterop

On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:11, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 
 *** The faculty ignore the mandates.
 
 This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of withholding grants 
 and put huge efforts into promoting, still only get 55% compliance.  
 
 You have spent  10 years trying to get effective mandates and they are 
 hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%.
 
 ZERO.
 
 Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example, U. 
 Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there:
 
 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151
 
 And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended.
 
 Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were willing to 
 listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in adopting an OA 
 mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to advice for years, 
 insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing publisher deposit, and 
 wasting scarce research money on paying for Gold OA instead of shoring up 
 their Green OA mandate.) 
 
 Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates with 
 institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing:
 
 Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html
 
 How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate Institutional 
 Mandates
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html
  
 There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will 
 self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs 
 going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money?
 
 No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan  John 
 Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA:
 http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf
 
 Yes - and probably  5% of VCs care about it. 
 
 You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and the 
 effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits are large, 
 and the costs are next to nothing: just effective policy-making and 
 implementation. 
  
 My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if we continue as 
 we are. We have to get much tougher. And university mandates are seen as next 
 to useless - universities can't police them and it alienates the faculty.
 
 The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler and quicker to 
 carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the faculty - the less they care, 
 the easier it is.
 
 I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should unite 
 and take decisive action.
 
 I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the reachable, now, 
 rather than fulminating about the unreachable (especially when reaching for 
 the reachable, now, is eventually likely to bring more of the unreachable 
 within reach).
 
 Stevan Harnad
 ___
 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: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-13 Thread Peter Murray-Rust
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:



 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi)
 contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of
 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked
 restricted access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems
 completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA
 repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression
 that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access.



I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says:


*Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and characterisation
of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method [
handle:2268/127219 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/127219 ]*

*Document(s) requested:*
 *Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint *

*The desired document is not currently available on open access.
Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the author(s) through the
form below. If your request is accepted you will receive by email a link
allowing you access to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum.
*

*...
*
*The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the
electronic copy can only be used for the strict purposes of illustration
and teaching and academic and scientific research, as long as it is not for
the purposes of financial gain, and that the source, including the
author’s name is indicated.
*

So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am not allowed
the Open Access from Liege. If I represent a patient group I am not
allowed this material. If I am in government making eveidence-based policy
I am not allowed it. It is the pernicious model that only academics need
and can have access to the results of scholarship.

As I have said before University repositories seem to delight in the
process of restricting access.

No wonder that no-one will use this repo. All it seems to do is mail the
author and I can do that anyway (presumably if the author leaves the uni
then the email goes nowhere).

In today's market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf instead. I am
not condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more sympathetic to it than repos.

But I have been told to shut up and I will. I'm slightly disappointed that
no-one is prepared to consider the possibility we should do something
different.


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER:

For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to and fro
on GOAL is about:

1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed
journal articles.

2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles +
certain re-use rights (often CC-BY).

3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their peer-reviewed
final drafts free for all online (either in the author's institutional
repository or website or in an institution-external central repository)

4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that
provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often at
the cost of an author publication fee.

5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article output,
though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle physics near
100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest).

6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is Gold.
Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre.

7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher Green OA
rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA mandates -- and only
a tiny proportion of the world's institutions and funders mandate OA as yet
have Green OA mandates at all.

8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require self-archiving
only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: 60% of journals
endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for embargoes of varying
in length from 6-12 months to 5 years or indefinitely.

9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA: Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access)
are the ones that require immediate deposit of all articles, but if the
publisher has an OA embargo, access to the deposit can be set as Closed
Access during the allowable embargo period (preferably no more than 6
months).

10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated
email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for
research purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with one
click. (This is not OA but Almost-OA.)

11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that 100%
of papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research purposes,
not just the 60% that have publisher endorsement.

12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of
institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA plus
40% Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the power and
utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to all
researchers, as authors and users.

There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should be
designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for institutional
performance review, and funders should mandate convergent institutional
deposit rather than divergent institution-external deposit.)

And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated by
institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of Libre OA
(CC-BY) and Gold OA.

All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL postings
are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA. Only mandates
will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does not confer instant
global OA.

First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of the
reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach.

Stevan Harnad


On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:



 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.ukwrote:



 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi)
 contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of
 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked
 restricted access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems
 completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA
 repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression
 that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access.



 I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says:


 *Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and characterisation
 of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method [
 handle:2268/127219 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/127219 ]*

 *Document(s) requested:*
  *Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint *

 *The desired document is not currently available on open access.
 Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the author(s) through the
 form below. If your request is accepted you will receive by email a link
 allowing you access to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts
 maximum.*

 *...
 *
 *The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the
 electronic copy can only be used for the 

[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-12 Thread Jean-Claude Guédon
I think we are going somewhere here.

Could we manage, with the help of some foundation, manage to bring
together a number of top university administrators from all over the
world (minimum 20) to hash out exactly what could be done in a
coordinated fashion?

Moving en masse to a mandate would create a real momentum that could no
longer be ignored.

Who wants to work on this? I do!

Jean-Claude

Le jeudi 12 juillet 2012 à 10:15 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
 On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Peter
 Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: 
 
 Fairy Tale:
   * The top 20 vice-chancellors (provosts, heads of
 institutions) in the world meet for 2 days (obviously
 somewhere nice). 
   * They bring along a few techies (I'd go). 
   * They agree that they will create copies of all the
 papers their faculty have published. (this is trivial
 as they are already collecting them for REF, etc. And
 if they can't , then I can provide software).
   * They reformat them to non-PDF.
   * They put them up on their university website.
   * They prepare to fight the challenge from the
 publishers.
 and
   * they win the law suit. Because it's inconceivable that
 a judge (except in Texas) will find for the
 publishers.
   * Other universities will take the model and do it.
 
 
 
 
 Rather than asking universities, unrealistically, to risk a lawsuit,
 needlessly (even though I agree completely with PM-R that it would be
 lost), as in PM-R's fairy tail, why not, realistically, do almost
 the same thing:
 
 
 
   * The top 20 vice-chancellors (provosts, heads of
 institutions) in the world meet for 2 days 
   * They agree that they will mandate that copies of all
 the papers their faculty are deposited in their
 institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance
 for publication
   * They adopt the optimal mandate: ID/OA, together with
 the email-eprint-request Almost-OA Button for
 embargoed deposits.
   * Other universities will take the model and do it.
 
 This is called Green Gratis OA self-archiving. No one is proposing to
 forfeit either Gold OA or Libre OA (re-use rights), just to accord
 priority to the more important and urgent, and also easier and more
 reachable goal of mandating Green Gratis OA first, because it is
 within reach and already underway. 
 
 
 The Libre OA and Gold OA will follow the universal mandating of Green
 Gratis OA as surely as the publishers' lawsuit would lose if PM-R's
 fairy tale came true. 
 
 
 But next to nothing at all will happen if we keep on failing to reach
 first for the reachable, and keep insisting instead on the
 unreachable.
 
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 
 On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk
 wrote:
 
 I think JC identifies the key point:
 
 
 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
 jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
 
 Gold OA will not get in the way of Green OA if it is
 explained correctly; and forfeiting gold OA will do
 more harm to the OA movement than the harm gold OA
 could ever and putatively make to green OA.
 
 If, among OA advocates, we could get this behind us,
 we could achieve four important results:
 
 1. We would be far more united, and, therefore, more
 powerful;
 
 
 Yes. But JC does not go far enough. Here's my diagnosis and a
 fairy-tale
 
   * The OA movement is fragmented, with no clear unified
 objective. We (if I can count myself a member of
 anything) resemble the People's Front of Judea and the
 Judean People's Front (Monty Python). Every time I am
 lectured on why one approach is the only one I lose
 energy and the movement - if it is a movement - loses
 credibility. Until we get a unified body that fights
 for our rights we are ineffective. 
   * Most people (especially librarians) are scared stiff
 of publishers and their lawyers.
   * There is a huge pot of public money (tens of billions
 in sciences) and it's easier to pay off the publishers
 than standing against them. There is no price control
 on publishing - publishers charge what they can get
 away with.
   * The contract between publishers and academics has
 

[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-12 Thread Stevan Harnad
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

*** The faculty ignore the mandates.

 This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of withholding
 grants and put huge efforts into promoting, still only get 55% compliance.

 You have spent  10 years trying to get effective mandates and they are
 hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%.

 ZERO.


Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example, U.
Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there:

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151

And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended.

Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were willing to
listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in adopting an OA
mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to advice for years,
insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing publisher deposit, and
wasting scarce research money on paying for Gold OA instead of shoring up
their Green OA mandate.)

Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates with
institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing:

Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html

How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate
Institutional Mandates
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html


 There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will
 self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs
 going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money?


No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan  John
Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA:
http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf

Yes - and probably  5% of VCs care about it.


You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and the
effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits are large,
and the costs are next to nothing: just effective policy-making and
implementation.


 My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if we continue
 as we are. We have to get much tougher. And university mandates are seen as
 next to useless - universities can't police them and it alienates the
 faculty.

 The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler and quicker
 to carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the faculty - the less they
 care, the easier it is.

 I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should
 unite and take decisive action.


I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the reachable,
now, rather than fulminating about the unreachable (especially when
reaching for the reachable, now, is eventually likely to bring more of the
unreachable within reach).

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


[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-12 Thread Heather Morrison
On 2012-07-12, at 11:13 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should unite and 
take decisive action.

Comment: I agree and disagree. May I suggest that the OA community should work 
in tandem with mutual respect rather than attempting to unite? There is no 
one-size-fits all. Here are some reasons.

I would argue that it is the communities of scholars, publishers, and 
librarians, working both separately and together, that need to take action. 
Physics has provided us with one model, first with arXiv and now with SCOAP3. 
Medicine has given us another, with the PubMedCentral International initiative. 
Economics has RePEC, an interesting initiative that builds on institutional 
repositories to build a discipline-focused service. Timothy Gowers and 
colleagues are leading the way in the field of mathematics. 

In Canada, librarians and publishers have come together in the Synergies 
project which has helped many scholarly journals to develop an online presence 
and made open access an easier choice.  In Canada and many other countries, 
academic publishing is not a profitable venture, and so scholarly journals have 
been subsidized by the government. I think it was Leslie Chan  Jean-Claude 
Guedon who helped the funder, SSHRC, develop an Aid to Open Access Journals 
program. Latin American countries are somewhat similar in this respect 
(scholarly publishing is not about the profits); I would argue that this is one 
of the reasons why this region has been able to go straight for gold. The 
situation is very different where the for-profit companies are at home and have 
more ability to lobby effectively, such as the UK and the US. Here, it is 
probably necessary to start with green. 

Strong open access policies are important - as Harnad pointed out, these need 
to be green, involve immediate deposit even if access is delayed, and 
accomodate the almost-OA researcher-mediated sharing. We should continue to 
push on these lines. However, I would also argue that ultimately what needs to 
happen is a careful, thoughtful transition of revenue from toll to open access. 
The Compact on Open Access Publishing Equity is doing good work in this area 
and is worthy of support.

There are so many open access initiatives today that are worthy of support I 
can only apologize for the many that I am omitting.

One way to think about open access (which a few of us in the Directory of Open 
Access Books discussion are agreeing on) is that the real opposite of open 
access is closed access - the works that we cannot read at all, because they 
are not available or so costly that we cannot afford to read them at all. 

my two bits,

Heather Morrison, MLIS
Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com





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


[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

2012-07-12 Thread Jean-Claude Guédon
Let us get back to basics instead of bickering among ourselves.

How about trying to organize a high-level meeting of administrators and
see what agreement could be achieved to move forward as a group and not
through individual moves that keep on differing a little from each
other.

We need a group definition and implementation of some form of mandate
with teeth. Obviously, Bernard Rentier and the rector from Minho could
give their viewpoint on this issue in support of such a move. Obviously,
Stuart Shieber and others who have managed faculty self-mandating should
also be present. 

Anyone listening? Anyone willing to cooperate on this?

Jean-Claude Guédon


Le jeudi 12 juillet 2012 à 18:11 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

 On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk
 wrote:
 
 
 
 *** The faculty ignore the mandates.
 
 This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of
 withholding grants and put huge efforts into promoting, still
 only get 55% compliance.  
 
 You have spent  10 years trying to get effective mandates and
 they are hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%.
 
 ZERO.
 
 
 
 Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example,
 U. Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there:
 
 
 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151
 
 
 And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended.
 
 
 Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were
 willing to listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in
 adopting an OA mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to
 advice for years, insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing
 publisher deposit, and wasting scarce research money on paying for
 Gold OA instead of shoring up their Green OA mandate.) 
 
 
 Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates
 with institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing:
 
 
 Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian
 Model
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html
 
 
 How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate
 Institutional Mandates
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html
  
 There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists
 will self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines.
 What are the VCs going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant
 money?
 
 
 
 No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan 
 John Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA:
 http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf
 
 
 Yes - and probably  5% of VCs care about it. 
 
 
 You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and
 the effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits
 are large, and the costs are next to nothing: just effective
 policy-making and implementation. 
  
 My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if
 we continue as we are. We have to get much tougher. And
 university mandates are seen as next to useless - universities
 can't police them and it alienates the faculty.
 
 
 The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler
 and quicker to carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the
 faculty - the less they care, the easier it is.
 
 I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community
 should unite and take decisive action.
 
 
 I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the
 reachable, now, rather than fulminating about the unreachable
 (especially when reaching for the reachable, now, is eventually likely
 to bring more of the unreachable within reach).
 
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 ___
 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