On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Diane Kornbrot (U. Hertfordshire) wrote:
> I am having similar problems at University of Hertfordshire.
>
> Is there somewhere a draft code of practice or policy (e.g. How is it
> done at Southampton) that we could all show to our Univ admin people?
Yes there is a draft code of practice!
1.
The Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and
Model
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Universities are invited to use this document to
help encourage the adoption of an Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate
at their institution. Note that this recommended "Immediate-Deposit
& Optional-Access" (IDOA) policy model (also called the "Dual
Deposit/Release Strategy") has been specifically formulated to be
immune from any delays or embargoes (based on publisher policy or
copyright restrictions): Deposit, in the author's own Institutional
Repository (IR), of the author's final, peer-reviewed draft of
all journal articles is required immediately upon acceptance for
publication, with no delays or exceptions; but whether access to
that deposit is immediately set to Open Access or provisionally set
to Closed Access (with only the metadata, but not the full-text,
accessible webwide) is left up to the author, with only a strong
recommendation to set access as Open Access as soon as possible
(immediately wherever possible, and otherwise preferably with a
maximal embargo cap at 6 months).
This IDOA policy is greatly preferable to, and far more effective
than a policy that allows delayed deposit (embargo) or opt-out
as determined by publisher policy or copyright restrictions. The
restrictions apply only to the *access-setting*, not to the
deposit, which must be immediate. Closed Access deposit is purely
an institution-internal book-keeping matter, with the institution's
own assets, and no publisher policy or copyright restriction applies
to it.
[In the meanwhile, if there needs to be an embargo period, the IR
software has a semi-automated EMAIL EPRINT REQUEST button that allows
any would-be user to request (by entering their email address and
clicking) and then allows any author to provide (by simply clicking
on a URL that appears in the eprint request received by email)
a single copy of the deposited draft, by email, on an individual
basis (a practice that falls fully under Fair Use). This provides
almost-immediate, almost-Open Access to tide over research usage
needs during any Closed Access period.]
2.
Professor Arthur Sale of University of Tasmania, which has an OA
self-archiving mandate (designed by Prof. Sale) has also provided
a Risk Analysis:
Generic Risk Analysis Open Access for your institution
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/266/01/Risk_Analysis-v1.0.pdf
3. Model policies for research funders (drafted collaboratively by Alma
Swan,
Arthur Sale, Subbiah Arunachalam, Peter Suber and Stevan Harnad by modifying
the Wellcome Trust Self-Archiving Policy to eliminate the 6-month embargo
and
the central archiving requirement):
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
4.
And here is Southampton ECS's policy (the first OA self-archiving
mandate - from 2001):
OA Self-Archiving Policy: University of Southampton
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=University%
20of%20Southampton%20Department%20of%20Electronics%20and%20Computer%20Scienc
e
1. It is our policy to maximise the visibility, usage and impact of our
research output by maximising online access to it for all would-be users and
researchers worldwide.
1a. It is also our policy to minimise the effort that each of us has
to
expend in order to provide open online access to our research output:
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/
1b. With all our research output accessible online we will be able to
respond to the research assessment and other administrative initiatives with
minimal input and effort from individual staff.
2. We have accordingly adopted the policy that all research output is
to be
self-archived in the departmental EPrint Archive before and after
peer-reviewed
publication. This archive forms the official record of the Department's
research publications; all publication lists required for administration or
promotion will be generated from this source.
3. Our policy is compatible with publishers' copyright agreements as
follows:
3a. The copyright for the unrefereed preprint resides entirely with
the
author before it is submitted for peer-reviewed publication, hence it can be
self-archived irrespective of the copyright policy of the journal to which
it
is eventually submitted.
3b. The copyright for the peer-reviewed postprint will depend on the
wording of the copyright agreement which the author signs with the
publisher.
3c. Many publishers will allow the peer-reviewed postprint to be
self-archived. The copyright transfer agreement will either specify this
right
explicitly or the author can inquire about it directly. If you are uncertain
about the terms of your agreement, a directory of journal self-archiving
policies --
http://romeo.eprints.org -- is available to guide you. Wherever
possible, you are advised to modify your copyright agreement so that it does
not disallow self-archiving.
3d. In the rare case where you have signed a very restrictive
copyright
transfer form in which you have agreed explicitly not to self-archive the
peer-reviewed postprint, you are encouraged to self-archive, alongside your
already-archived preprint, a "corrigenda" file, listing the substantive
changes
the user would need to make in order to turn the unrefereed preprint into
the
refereed postprint.
3e. Copyright agreements may state that eprints can be archived on
your
personal homepage. As far as publishers are concerned, the EPrint Archive is
a
part of the Department's infrastructure for your personal homepage.
4. We do not require you to archive the full text of books or
research
monographs. It is sufficient to archive the references along with the usual
metadata.
5. Some journals still maintain submission policies which state that
a preprint
will not be considered for publication if it has been previously
'publicised'
by making it accessible online. Unlike copyright transfer agreements, such
policies are not a matter of law. If you have concerns about submitting an
archived paper to a journal which still maintains such a restrictive
submission
policy, please discuss it with the Department's IPR and Copyright Advisor.
> On 7/8/07 19:15, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>
> > [Cross-Posted]
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Colman, Prof A.M. wrote:
> >
> > > > Dear Stevan
> > > >
> > > > I am keen to have my publications archived where they are likely to
> > > > be
> > > > found by interested readers. After your encouraging reply, I spent a
> > > > whole day retrieving 63 manuscript drafts of articles and tidying
> > > > them
> > > > up for deposit in the Leicester Research Archive. Because PDFs of
> > > > the
> > > > published versions are already in my own web space, I inserted a
> > > > hyperlink on each manuscript version, directing readers to the PDF
> > > > version.
> >
> > I would advise you to to forward this exchange to the IP policy-makers
> > at U Leicester, because the logic of the current UL policy has to be
> > more
> > carefully thought through. I am sure UL's motivation is to help, not
> > hinder UL's research impact while ensuring everything is in conformity
> > with the law. A few minor but critical changes in the current policy
> > will accomplish both goals: maximal impact, and full legality:
> >
> > > > A month later, less than half of my manuscripts are in the Leicester
> > > > Research Archive. The archive has been seeking permission from the
> > > > publishers for archiving each manuscript draft, and, for those for
> > > > which
> > > > permission has been granted, have also carefully deleted the
> > > > hyperlinks
> > > > that I inserted at the top of each manuscript draft.
> >
> > This is the policy that urgently needs to be carefully thought through
> > again, as it has a few major, unnecessary flaws that are easily
> > remediable, but do need to be remedied:
> >
> > (1) *All* manuscripts should be deposited immediately upon acceptance
> > for publication. Deposit itself is entirely the prerogative of UL,
> > an internal matter, not requiring permission from anyone. It is only
> > *access-setting* to that deposited document -- i.e. Open Access vs.
> > Closed Access -- that can depend on publisher policy.
> >
> > (2) If the UL archivists wish to query the publishers about
> > access-setting, that's fine: in the meanwhile, access to the full texts
> > of the deposits can be set as Closed Access.
> >
> > (3) If the response to the query is affirmative (or the policy
> > indexed in Romeo endorses immediate OA self-archiving), set access
> > as Open Access; otherwise, rely on the "Request Copy" "Fair
> > Use" Button for those who want access to the Closed Access deposits:
> >
> > "How the Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access
> > Mandate + the 'Fair Use' Button Work"
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html
> > http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php//RequestCopy
> >
> > (Deleting hyperlinks to the PDFs on your website makes no sense at all!)
> >
> > > > I am not convinced of the value of manuscript drafts on their own.
> > > > Researchers cannot rely on them, even if they are in fact faithful
> > > > versions of the published articles, which is seldom the case because
> > > > of
> > > > copy-editing alterations that are often not even discussed with
> > > > authors.
> >
> > Andrew, you are judging this against the wrong baseline:
> >
> > (a) If a potential user has access to either the publisher's paper
> > version or PDF, they can and will use that. Those are *not* the
> > users for whom the self-archived version is being provided.
> >
> > (b) If a potential user does *not* have access to either the publisher's
> > paper version or PDF, then their problem is not that they don't have
> > access to a "faithful" copy-edited version, but that they have no access
> > at all! *Those* are the target users for whom OA is needed, and being
> > provided, and they are the ones who double research impact if they are
> > at last given access.
> >
> > Please don't think of OA self-archiving as replacing subscription
> > access. It is a *supplement*, for those who are denied subscription
> > access. You can make your final draft as faithful as you judge
> > necessary. But it would be a huge error in judgment and priorities
> > to deprive would-be users of access altogether, when they can't
> > afford subscription access at all, simply because you don't want to
> > deprive them of the copy-editing!
> >
> > > > Even if one had confidence in the accuracy of a manuscript version,
> > > > it
> > > > would be impossible to quote from it, because the pagination would
> > > > be
> > > > missing. I don't find other researchers' manuscript drafts nearly as
> > > > useful as final PDFs.
> >
> > Again, you are weighing this entirely from the wrong viewpoint: Those
> > who can't *access* it, cannot read or use your research *at all*.
> >
> > (And of course one can quote from a manuscript version. One quotes it,
> > specifying the section and paragraph number instead of the page! That
> > is in fact more accurate and scholarly than a page reference. And if
> > the copy-editor (of the article one is writing, in which one is quoting
> > from an article for which one only has access to the final draft, not
> > the PDF) requests page-spans, *that's* the time to tell the copy-editor
> > that one does not have subscription access, so let *them* look up the
> > page numbers -- or use the even better scholarly indicator of section
> > name and paragraph number.)
> >
> > "Paragraph-Based Quotation in Place of PDF/Page-Based"
> > http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5755.html
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/154-guid.html
> >
> > > > You said that "Leicester's only omission in all of this is not yet
> > > > having mandated deposit; once it does that, all will go well". Worse
> > > > than that, the person handling my submissions believes that
> > > > publishers
> > > > need to be contacted for each item, and that "unfortunately I do
> > > > have to
> > > > wait for permission to archive them, even if they are drafts.
> > > > Generally
> > > > publishers do not allow the 'as published versions' to be archived
> > > > by
> > > > anyone apart from themselves on their own sites and so for us to
> > > > archive
> > > > them, or provide links to sites, other than the publisher's official
> > > > site, may breach copyright law. . . . Unfortunately we are not
> > > > allowed
> > > > to even archive the drafts from the following publications which you
> > > > have articles in [followed by a list]".
> >
> > This UL provisional policy has not been thought through and needs only a
> > few simple parametric changes to make it sensible and effective:
> >
> > (i) The manuscript can and should be deposited immediately. No one's
> > permission is needed for that, and the metadata are then immediately
> > visible webwide, and the "Fair Use" Button can start doing its job.
> >
> > (ii) The journal policy can already be looked up in Romeo for most
> > journals, and that means 62% of the immediate deposits can definitely be
> > set to Open Access immediately. The archivist can write to the publisher
> > to double-check the policy if they wish, but meanwhile the deposit
> > should
> > be OA for this 62%:
> >
> > http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
> >
> > (iii) For the remaining 38% of immediate-deposits, set access initially
> > as Closed Access, and let the archivist inquire, if they wish. Meanwhile
> > the Fair Use button will be doing its job.
> >
> > "Get the Institutional Repository Managers Out of the Decision
> > Loop"
> > http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6482.html
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/260-guid.html
> >
> > > > Is this right, and if not, is there perhaps a different archive in
> > > > which
> > > > I and my colleagues could place our articles? I have several
> > > > colleagues
> > > > who are keen on this idea but are not attracted by the very partial
> > > > solution available locally.
> >
> > The Leicester Archive policy is very wrong on this score. I urge you to
> > take it up with the administration, because currently they are shooting
> > themselves in the foot, gratuitously, with this flawed policy, so easily
> > corrected.
> >
> > Yes, there are other Archives you could deposit it in, but it would be a
> > great pity if Leicester did not sort out its own deposit policy, as it
> > is so simple to do:
> >
> > (1) All manuscripts should be deposited immediately.
> >
> > (2) Not only the archivists but the authors should be able to deposit,
> > as they can in virtually all of the other IRs worldwide. Almost no IR
> > restricts depositing to proxy archivists (and those few that do are
> > making a big mistake in imposing this needless and counterproductive
> > restriction).
> >
> > (3) If there are worries about rights, check Romeo, and, if the
> > archivist
> > wishes, also write to the publisher. But meanwhile, deposit immediately
> > and set Access as Closed Access if in doubt.
> >
> > (4) Implement the "Fair Use" Button:
> > http://www.eprints.org/news/features/request_button.php
> >
> > (5) Adopt the ID/OA policy:
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> > AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> >
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum
> .htm>
> l
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
> >
> > UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
> > If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing Open Access
> > to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
> > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
> >
> > OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
> > BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access
> > journal
> > http://romeo.eprints.org/
> > OR
> > BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal
> > if/when
> > a suitable one exists.
> > http://www.doaj.org/
> > AND
> > in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
> > in your own institutional repository.
> > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
> > http://archives.eprints.org/
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/
> >
>
>
> Professor Diana Kornbrot
> Evaluation Co-ordinator, Blended Learning Unit
> University of Hertfordshire
> College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK
Received on Tue Aug 07 2007 - 22:01:38 BST