Peter Suber's comments are on the right track, but too ambitious and in some
cases too culturally rooted to be accepted in Australia, and maybe
elsewhere. Let me suggest some changes:
DELETE
> If the grantee chooses to publish in an OA journal that charges an upfront
> processing fee on accepted articles, then the funding agency will agree to
> pay the fee.
REPLACE
If the grantee chooses to publish in an OA journal that charges an upfront
processing fee on accepted articles, then the grantee is required to meet
the cost from the grant or other sources.
COMMENT
More sensible than an open-ended commitment for funding sources, also puts
responsibility where it should be.
DELETE
> The OA condition on research grants could make reasonable exceptions, for
> example, for classified military research, for patentable discoveries, and
> for works that generate revenue for the author such as books.
REPLACE
The OA condition on research grants provides for reasonable exceptions, for
example for classified military research, for research that involves third
parties (such as industry or government partners) and contractual
arrangements, for patentable discoveries, and for works that generate
revenue for the author such as books.
COMMENT
Our major reason for exceptions would be industry contractual research.
DELETE
> * Signatory nations should provide funds and technical assistance for all
> universities and research centers in the country to set up and maintain
> their own OA repositories. One condition of government assistance should
> be that the institution adopt a policy to encourage or require its
> researchers to deposit their research output in the repository. Again,
the
> policy could recognize reasonable exceptions.
REPLACE
* Signatory nations should require that each institution adopt a policy to
require its researchers to deposit their research output in an OA
repository. Again, the policy could recognize reasonable exceptions.
COMMENT
We'd rather the Australian government kept out of university business if at
all possible. In this respect we want minimal strings attached to the funds
we receive. The costs are anyway minimal and any university should be able
to meet them, even the smallest.
DELETE
> * Signatory nations should provide funds and technical assistance for
> digitizing and providing open access to the nation's cultural heritage.
COMMENT
This is nothing to do with open access to research, however laudable. Also
trivial to meet as the target is undefined. Australia already meets this
aim.
Arthur
Arthur Sale
Professor of Computing Research, University of Tasmania
127 Tranmere Road, Howrah, Tasmania 7018, AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6247 1331 (International replace '(03)' by '+61-3-') or Mobile 04
1947 1331
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Monday, 24 January 2005 09:17
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Open-access proposal for
> the a2k treaty (fwd)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500
> From: Peter Suber <peters_at_earlham.edu>
> To: a2k_at_lists.essential.org, SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org,
boai-forum_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I propose the following provisions for the Access to Knowledge
> Treaty. Their purpose is to promote open access to scientific and
> scholarly research literature.
>
> * Signatory nations should put an open-access condition on publicly-funded
> research grants. By accepting a grant, the grantee agrees to provide open
> access (OA) to any publications that result from the funded research.
>
> The funding agency should give the grantee a choice of methods for
> providing OA to the resulting publications. Grantees should be able to
> choose between OA journals and OA archives (also called OA
> repositories). The OA archives should meet certain conditions of
> accessibility, interoperability, and long-term preservation. The
> interoperability condition could be satisfied by complying with the
> metadata harvesting protocol of the Open Archives Initiative
> <http://www.openarchives.org/>. Qualifying archives need not be hosted by
> the government; they could, for example, be hosted and maintained by
> universities.
>
> If the grantee chooses to publish in an OA journal that charges an upfront
> processing fee on accepted articles, then the funding agency will agree to
> pay the fee.
>
> The OA condition on research grants could make reasonable exceptions, for
> example, for classified military research, for patentable discoveries, and
> for works that generate revenue for the author such as books.
>
> * Signatory nations should provide funds and technical assistance for all
> universities and research centers in the country to set up and maintain
> their own OA repositories. One condition of government assistance should
> be that the institution adopt a policy to encourage or require its
> researchers to deposit their research output in the repository. Again,
the
> policy could recognize reasonable exceptions.
>
> * Signatory nations should provide funds and technical assistance for
> digitizing and providing open access to the nation's cultural heritage.
>
> * Signatory nations should sign the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to
> Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.
> http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html
>
> I may suggest other recommendations in the coming weeks.
>
> -----
>
> For further reading, see the following:
>
> Open Access Overview
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
> (An introduction to OA for those who are new to the concept.)
>
> Timeline of Open Access
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
> (A brief history to show what has been done in this area and to answer
> objections that OA is new, untried, or radical.)
>
> Scientific Publications: Free for All?
>
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/3990
2.
> htm
> (The exemplary July 2004 report of the UK House of Commons Science and
> Technology Committee; all nations signing the a2k treaty should consider
> the 82 recommendations in this report; by contrast, these nations should
> *not* follow the much-weakened policy of the US National Institutes of
Health.)
>
> Thank you taking up this important topic,
> Peter Suber
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> Peter Suber
> Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge
> Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
> Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter
> Editor, Open Access News blog
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/
> peter.suber_at_earlham.edu
Received on Mon Jan 24 2005 - 01:22:42 GMT