[From Peter Suber's Open Access News]
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_12_03_fosblogarchive.html#116526965445838544
Australia's ARC expects OA for ARC-funded projects
The Australian Research Council (ARC) has published the Funding
Rules for funding commencing in 2008 (undated but apparently released
December 3, 2006). (Thanks to Colin Steele.)
http://www.arc.gov.au/
http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP08_FundingRules.pdf
Excerpt:
1.4.5. Dissemination of research outputs
1.4.5.1. The Australian Government makes a major investment in
research to support its essential role in improving the wellbeing
of our society. To maximise the benefits from research, findings
need to be disseminated as broadly as possible to allow access
by other researchers and the wider community.
1.4.5.2. The ARC acknowledges that researchers take into account
a wide range of factors in deciding on the best outlets for
publications arising from their research. Such considerations
include the status and reputation of a journal or publisher,
the peer review process of evaluating their research outputs,
access by other stakeholders to their work, the likely impact of
their work on users of research and the further dissemination and
production of knowledge. Taking heed of these considerations,
the ARC wants to ensure the widest possible dissemination of
the research supported under its funding, in the most effective
manner and at the earliest opportunity.
1.4.5.3. The ARC therefore encourages researchers to consider
the benefits of depositing their data and any publications
arising from a research project in an appropriate subject and/or
institutional repository wherever such a repository is available
to the researcher(s). If a researcher is not intending to deposit
the data from a project in a repository within a six-month
period, he/she should include the reasons in the project's
Final Report. Any research outputs that have been or will be
deposited in appropriate repositories should be identified in
the Final Report.
COMMENT: by Peter Suber. Kudos to the ARC for this important step.
The policy doesn't use the language of a mandate, but it takes an
approach that may be functionally equivalent: beyond requesting
compliance, it shifts the burden to non-complying grantees to justify
their non-compliance. This creates a strategic consideration that is
not a sanction but more consequential that anything to be found in
some of the policies that use mandatory language.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_12_03_fosblogarchive.html#116526965445838544
Received on Wed Dec 06 2006 - 23:17:51 GMT