I agree that this is a forward step over many similar policies,
even if it does have logical deficiencies.
I would add one more desideratum, and I'm suprised you
omitted it:
access on the day of publication
It would seem apparent that the question of which
repository is secondary as long as it is a secure
well-run OAI compliant repository. On this, we can accept
anything that works.
It would also seem apparent that full access on the day
of publication is an absolute requirement, and has been
so from the first.
One of the key groups we have always
wanted to help is the researchers at smaller universities,
or even large ones that did not get a particular journal.
This was the point of the open access advantage
argument--that authors should publish OA,
so that their less well-situated colleagues
could see, could use, and could cite.
You in particular have always stressed this reason.
I have not given up on this. Have you?
180 days delay will not serve this group, and I am suprised at your accepting it.
Admittedly, most authors do not themselves see the benefit, or think it worth
the trouble--but that has always been the reason given for the need for mandates,
to induce the authors to do what will benefit themselves and others.
180 days is probably sufficient for the students wrting term papers, but they're not
the primary cateogory, important though it is for the developent of future scientists.
If one were to accept your argument, than the majority of Highwire journals, which are in
a very reliable repository (and most of them in PMC as well), meet the equirements for
OA. I have the greatest respect for Highwire's service, and for its unrelenting efforts
to reduce embargo periods. If this is the best we can get right now from some publishers,
it'll have to do.
But it is not the goal. Go back and read Budapest.
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:24 pm
Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] CIHR Proposes Optimal OA Self-Archiving Mandate
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **
> CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research] has proposed a 99.99%
> optimal Self-Archiving Mandate: http://www.cihr-
> irsc.gc.ca/e/32326.html
> CIHR grant and award holders must:
>
> [1] [self]-archive [all]
> (1a) final peer-reviewed published articles or final
> peer-reviewed full-text manuscripts
> (1b) in an appropriate [OAI]-compliant digital
> archive, such as PubMed Central, or an institutional
> repository
> (1c) immediately upon publication.
> (1d) A publisher-imposed embargo on open accessibility of
> no more than 6 months is acceptable.
>
> [OR]
>
> [2] submit their manuscripts either
> (2a) to a journal that provides immediate open access to
> published articles (if a suitable journal exists),
> OR
> (2b) to a journal that allows authors to retain copyright
> and/or allows authors to archive journal publications
> in an
> open access archive within the six-month period following
> publication.
>
> There is only one unnecessary and confusing clause in CIHR's
> policy: (2b).
> (2b) is redundant with [1]! (2b) says the author must publish in a
> journalthat allows [1]. But that is already implicit in [1] -- it
> is not a
> sub-option of [2]. [1] is the requirement to self-archive immediately
> (and to set access as Open Access within 6 months). Alternative [2] is
> to publish in an Open Access journal. That covers all the
> alternatives!(2b) is completely redundant.
>
> So (2b) should simple be dropped.
>
> That's all, really. There are still a few things minor changes that
> would make the policy simpler, clearer, and more systematic and
> coherent.In order to encourage a uniform practice that will
> generalize and apply
> to all fields, whether or not funded by CIHR, it would be best if
> CIHR'suniform rule consisted of just these 5 components:
>
> I. must deposit final peer-reviewed manuscript (or published
> version) II. immediately upon publication
> III. in the author's own IR
>
> IV. access to deposit must be set as Open Access within 6 months
>
> V. where possible, publish in a suitable OA journal
>
> This way, everything gets deposited immediately, and access is OA
> within6 months. The IR should be the preferred default locus, from
> which PubMed
> Central or other archives can harvest, but direct deposit elsewhere
> can be allowed as an option if the researcher has no institutional
> IR yet.
>
> cf: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/weaker-OApolicy.htm
>
> (CIHR also requires making research data and materials for reasonable
> requests: Might as well recommend -- but not require -- that they are
> self-archived too, wherever possible!)
>
> Bravo CIHR!
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Hynes wrote:
>
> > Please note that a public consultation has been launched to seek
> comments on
> > CIHR's proposed Policy on Access to Research Outputs.
> >
> > CIHR wishes to consult widely and we would appreciate your
> assistance in
> > bringing this initiative to the attention of other individuals and
> > organizations.
> >
> > Details on this policy initiative and information on submitting
> comments can
> > be found at the following web sites:
> >
> > English: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32395.html
> > <http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32395.html>
> >
> > French: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/f/32395.html
> > <http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/f/32395.html>
> >
> > Comments or questions on the draft policy should be sent by e-
> mail to
> > access_at_cihr-irsc.gc.ca <mailto:access_at_cihr-irsc.gc.ca> or by
> mail to the
> > address below.
> >
> > Consultation on the Access to Research Outputs Policy
> > Canadian Institutes of Health Research
> > 160 Elgin Street, 9th Floor
> > Address Locator 4809A
> > Ottawa, ON, K1A 0W9
> > Canada
>
Received on Thu Oct 12 2006 - 16:01:43 BST