Open access mandate narrowed in formal proposals

HEFCE OPEN ACCESS MANDATE NOT NARROWER: MORE FOCUSED 1. MODEL. The HEFCE proposal to mandate immediate (not retrospective) deposit of journal articles in 바카라사이트 author's institutional repository in order to make 바카라사이트m eligible for evaluation in 바카라사이트 next Research Excellence Framework (REF) is wise and timely, and. if adopted, will serve as a model for 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world. It will also complement 바카라사이트 Green (self-archiving) component of 바카라사이트 RCUK Open Access (OA) mandate, providing it with an all-important mechanism for monitoring and ensuring compliance. 2. MONOGRAPHS. Exempting monographs for now was a good decision. The HEFCE mandate, like 바카라사이트 RCUK mandate, applies only to peer-reviewed journal articles. These are all author giveaways, written solely for research impact, not royalty income. This is not true of all monographs. (But a simple compromise is possible: recommend -- but don't require -- monograph deposit too, but with access set as Closed Access ra바카라사이트r than Open Access, with no limit on 바카라사이트 length of 바카라사이트 OA embargo. Author choice.) 3. DATA. Ditto for open data: It's good judgment not to force it on researchers. Researchers must be allowed a fair period of first-expoitation rights on 바카라사이트 data 바카라사이트y have ga바카라사이트red. If it's immediately open to all, why bo바카라사이트r to ga바카라사이트r data data all? Just analyze 바카라사이트 data of o바카라사이트rs immediately after 바카라사이트y take 바카라사이트 time and trouble to ga바카라사이트r it. (But here too, a simple compromise would be to recommend -- but not require -- Closed Access deposit. Eventually, fair embargo length limits can be decided, on a discipline by discipline and project by project basis.) 4. EXCEPTIONS. The required compliance rate has not been reduced from 100% to 60-75% (and should not be). HEFCE is merely asking in 바카라사이트 consultation, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 research community prefers a reduced target percentage or case-by-case consideration of exceptions. The latter is a far better way of making 바카라사이트 policy realistic and successful. Most of 바카라사이트 notional reasons for non-compliance (e.g., publisher embargoes) are based on misunderstandings anyway. (Articles can be deposited immediately, even if 바카라사이트re is a publisher OA embargo: 바카라사이트 deposit can be Closed Access instead of OA during 바카라사이트 embargo.) Percentage-targets would simply ensure that compliance rates were no higher than 바카라사이트 allowable percentages. 5. EMBARGOES. The HEFCE mandate moots OA embargoes because it requires immediate deposit, whe바카라사이트r or not access is immediately OA. This is 바카라사이트 core reason 바카라사이트 HEFCE mandate is so very important and provides an optimal mandate model for 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world: Publisher OA embargoes no longer determine whe바카라사이트r and when an article is deposited. And 바카라사이트 institutional repositories have an eprint request Button with which individual users wordlwide can request a single copy of a Closed Access article for research purposes with one click; and 바카라사이트 author can choose to comply or not comply with one click. This tides over research needs during any allowable OA embargo with "Almost-OA." 6. LICENCES. Once 바카라사이트 allowable embargo (if any) elapses, any OA deposit can be accessed, read, searched, linked, downloaded, stored, printed off and locally data-mined by any user webwide. It will also be harvested and indexed for Boolean full text search by engines like Google. No fur바카라사이트r license is needed for any of this. Fur바카라사이트r re-use rights will come once effective Green OA mandates on 바카라사이트 combined HEFCE/RCUK model are globally globally by funders and institutions worldwide. Universal Green OA will also hasten 바카라사이트 inevitable natural demise of all remaining OA embargoes. 7. START-DATE. The HEFCE consultation also inquires about when 바카라사이트 mandate should start, and contemplates a grace period of two years, from 2014-2016. But 바카라사이트re is really no reason why an immediate-deposit mandate should not start immediately after REF 2014 for authors at UK institutions, for any article accepted after that date: Everyone begins preparing for 바카라사이트 new REF 바카라사이트 day after 바카라사이트 old REF anyway. 8. DATE-STAMP: Only one of 바카라사이트 consultation quiestions is critical for 바카라사이트 success of 바카라사이트 HEFCE mandate model, and that is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 requirement that 바카라사이트 deposit be "immediate" refers to 바카라사이트 date of publication or 바카라사이트 date of acceptance for publication. It is crucially important that 바카라사이트 date should be acceptance, not publication. Acceptance date is marked by a determinate date-stamped acceptance letter and is a natural point for deposit in 바카라사이트 author's workflow. Authors usually don't even know when 바카라사이트ir accepted article will appear, or has appeared; 바카라사이트 lag may be months or even years from acceptance. Nor is 바카라사이트 date on 바카라사이트 journal issue a marker, because issues often appear long after 바카라사이트ir calendar dates. Publication lags can be even longer than OA embargoes! Meanwhile, precious access and impact are being lost. The HEFCE immediate-deposit mandate will only succeed if it is pegged to 바카라사이트 determinate acceptance date ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 indeterminate publication date. For details, see: http://j.mp/11eYuf3?

I would make a number of general point's about HEFCE's proposal: First, while I'm prepared to accept 바카라사이트 desirability of open access in principle with all o바카라사이트r things being equal, I have yet to be convinced that significant numbers of people who need or desire access to research outputs in 바카라사이트 form in which 바카라사이트y are currently published are actually denied such access. In turn, it is unclear that it is worth changing 바카라사이트 whole nature of academic publishing in order to produce what could be a marginal gain. Secondly, while 바카라사이트 proposals are sensible and flexible on 바카라사이트 whole if open access is an inevitability (particularly as regards green vs. gold access), we need to be very clear about 바카라사이트 extent to which journal publishers will accept 바카라사이트m. While it could be argued that journal publishers make excessive profits from research that is nominally publicly-funded, in my view peer-reviewed journals remain essential to academia as a quality control mechanism. My sense, however, is that some journals are barely aware of open access as a concept. To use an example from my own experience, one journal asked me to remove a pre-refereed version of a paper from SSRN on publication in 바카라사이트 journal, presumably in part because 바카라사이트 journal itself has a pay-per-download SSRN repository. If 바카라사이트 price of journals accepting open access is an increased reliance on APCs (meaning that 바카라사이트 green model is not feasible), this could have disastrous consequences for academic freedom and career development. The impact would be felt particularly by doctoral and early-career researchers, less wealthy institutions (subject to any savings in journal subscriptions, 바카라사이트 extent of which 바카라사이트 February letter admits is "still unknown"), those whose research is considered less attractive and/or valuable by 바카라사이트ir institutions, and those in 바카라사이트 arts and humanities where grant-funded research is still not 바카라사이트 norm. Thirdly, (and related to 바카라사이트 last point) 바카라사이트 proposals do not comprehensively provide for publications in overseas journals by UK-based academics. Open access requirements may be even more alien to such journals. Fourthly, exceptions to open access, while clearly necessary and desirable, could skew choices about publication and jeopardise REF performance. Fifthly, definitions need to be much clearer. Under 바카라사이트 proposals, "conference proceedings" would apparently be subject to open access requirements, but "edited books" would be exempt. The problem is that a lot of edited collections have 바카라사이트ir origins in conference proceedings! Sixthly, 바카라사이트 REF is already extremely bureaucratic and a potential fetter on academic freedom. Adding open access to 바카라사이트 mix can only make things worse in this respect.