[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:21 PM, David Prosser
<david.prosser_at_bodley.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
SH: it is an arbitrary and counterproductive
hoop that the publisher is being paid to jump
through, for no good reason whatsoever, and
to no genuine advantage, just disadvantage?
DP: if you have taken money to jump through an arbitrary
hoop then you can, and should, be castigated if you don?t
jump through that hoop. But I must admit I do love the
implication that this is heroic ?passive resistance? on
the part of the publishers to a ?bad? policy!
Alas you have completely missed my point, David, and keep on missing
it. The point is not to applaud publishers for being sluggish about
jumping through an arbitrary and counterproductive hoop that they
were needlessly paid to jump through, but to urge that the arbitrary
and counterproductive hoop be discarded in favor of a sound and
effective OA policy, suitable for emulation by other funders.
Stevan Harnad
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 26 June 2009 20:39
To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Funder Grant Conditions,
Fundee/Institutional Compliance, and 3rd-Party
Gobbledy-Gook
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, David
Prosser<david.prosser_at_bodley.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hang on, deposit is not an ?arbitrary hoop? that the
publisher can jump
> through as and when they are bothered. It is a condition of
the contract
> between the Wellcome and the publisher. If a publisher
accepts Wellcome?s
> money to make a paper Gold OA then one of the conditions of
the contract
> between them is that the publisher does the deposit. It is
exactly one of
> the services that the Gold publisher is being paid to publish
(irrespective
> of whether or not its part of the definition of Gold OA.).
>
> You may not agree with the strategy, but let?s not get
confused about what
> is being paid for.
I think I fully understand and understood that, David, and I
repeat: it is an arbitrary and counterproductive hoop that the
publisher is being paid to jump through, for no good reason
whatsoever, and to no genuine advantage, just disadvantage (for
the reasons I had been at pains to explain fully in the posting
appended below, as well as the posting following it).
And, yes, this concerns a short-sighted and unreflective
component of Wellcome's strategy -- one that is making the
otherwise commendable and historic Wellcome OA mandate not only
far less effective than it could be, but providing a
dysfunctional model for others to emulate, instead of one that
really could scale, systematically, and successfully, globally:
The fundee and fundee institution should be required to make
the deposit, whether the article be published in a paid-Gold OA
journal or a subscription journal. (And the default deposit
should be the author's refereed final draft [or better]; and
the default locus of deposit should be the author's
institutional repository, from which it can then be harvested
or imported to further repositories if desired.)
And I can only repeat my hope that Wellcome's response may be
enlightened enough to fix [this dysfunctional component of
Wellcome's policy] at this point (it's easy) rather than (as I
fear), just digging in deeper with a 'harrumph' and 'we know
what we're doing' and 'mind your own business'..." -- which, I
regret to have to say, David, is a lot closer to the spirit of
your own response here...
Stevan Harnad
> ________________________________
>
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
>
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On
> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 25 June 2009 22:22
> To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional
Compliance, and
> 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook
>
>
>
> There is a very simple fix for the (self-created) problem of
"noncompliant"
> publishers -- i.e., those who are paid for Gold OA by funders
like Wellcome
> and then fail to deposit the paid-up article:
>
> Gold OA fees are paid for Gold OA. That means the publisher
makes the
> article OA on his own website (and, of course, since all Gold
OA journals
> are also Green, also endorses immediate Green OA
self-archiving by the
> author in any repositories he chooses).
>
> Let us not castigate publishers if they do not immediately
also jump through
> the arbitrary hoop of further depositing their Gold OA
article in some
> designated repository or other on behalf of the author or the
funder. That
> is an extra (and as far as I know, it is not part of the
definition of Gold
> OA publication, nor the service that the Gold OA publisher is
being paid to
> provide).
>
> So if not the publisher, who is at fault if the article is
not deposited?
>
> (I pause to let you reflect a few moments.)
>
> Well of course the fault is the absurd,
again-not-thought-through mandate
> requiring fundees to make their articles OA, but relying on a
3rd party
> (unfunded by the funder, and merely paid to make the article
OA) to do the
> deposit!
>
> Not only does that make no sense at all for Gold OA articles,
but it also
> makes compliance and grant fulfillment a gratuitously
complicated overall
> affair, complicated to comply with, even more complicated to
monitor
> compliance with: http://bit.ly/3oxWHy
>
>
>
> For articles published in non-OA journals, the fundee must do
the deposit;
> for articles published in Gold OA journals (or only those
that are paid-OA?
> or only those whose paid-OA is paid by the funder?) the
publisher must do
> the deposit.
>
> I truly hope that the sensible reader will see at once that
the sensible way
> for a funder to mandate deposit is to put the onus for
compliance eclusively
> on the grantee and the grantee's institution, as with all
other funding
> conditions, not to offload it willy-nilly onto non-grantee
3rd parties
> (whose services may be paid for, but who certainly are not
being paid for
> repository deposit but for Gold OA publishing).
>
> And while we're at it, this is yet another reason why the
default repository
> specified by the funder should be the grantee's own
institutional repository
> and not, again, institution-external repositories. For with
local, one-stop
> deposit, the institution can collaborate, as usual, in
ensuring compliance
> with grant fulfillment conditions, by monitoring the deposits
in its own
> repository, making sure that every grant-funded article has
been deposited,
> regardless of whether it happens to be published in a Gold or
non-Gold
> journal. (And, as a bonus, the institution is then also more
likely to go on
> to adopt an IR deposit mandate of its own, for the rest of
its research
> output, in all fields, whether or not funded by that funder.)
>
> Chasing after 3rd parties -- whether publishers or
institution-external
> repositories -- creates gratuitous complications for
absolutely no extra
> gain, only needless extra pain.
>
> Is there any hope at all that funders who have committed to
these
> dysfunctional and counterproductive stipulations will be
enlightened enough
> to fix them at this point (it's easy) rather than (as I
fear), just digging
> in deeper with a "harrumph" and "we know what we're doing"
and "mind your
> own business"...
>
> With a sigh of resignation,
>
> Your weary archivangelist.
>
>
>
> PS If you want to find the origin of much of this easily
remedied confusion,
> look again at that mixed blessing, the well-meaning, timely,
> welcome and highly influential -- but relentlessly
unreflective -- ebiomed
> proposal
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm and its
> subsequent incarnations across the years...
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Sally
> Morris<sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Isn't it the case that it's only in the case of articles
published Open
>> Access, and where the fee is paid by Wellcome, that there is
any
>> requirement
>> on the publisher to do the depositing?
>>
>> Many other journals/publishers have a Wellcome-compliant
policy for
>> self-archiving of the accepted version, but they are not
paid anything nor
>> are they required to do anything, as far as I am aware
>>
>>
>> Sally
>>
>>
>> Sally Morris
>>
>> South House, The Street
>>
>> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>>
>> Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
>>
>> Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
>>
>> Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
>>
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On
>> Behalf Of Alma Swan
>> Sent: 25 June 2009 07:04
>> To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
>> Subject: Re: The Beginning of Institutional Repositories
>>
>> A little bird-in-the-know also told Alma that although 91%
of
>> Wellcome-funded research is published in journals compliant
with the
>> Wellcome policy, a major reason for disappointing deposit
levels in UKPMC
>> in
>> the first year of the Wellcome policy (at least) was that
the *publishers*
>> were not depositing as agreed (and as they were being paid
to do).
>>
>> I daresay they're shaping up by now.
>>
>> Alma Swan
>> Key Perspectives Ltd
>> Truro, UK
>>
>>
>> On 24/06/2009 11:01, "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)"
>> <sally_at_MORRIS-ASSOCS.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
>>
>>> That's what they told Alma. It is not, however, what they
are doing so
>> far
>>>
>>> Sally
>>>
>>>
>>> Sally Morris
>>> Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy
>>>
>>> South House, The Street
>>> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>>>
>>> Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
>>> Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
>>> Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
>>>
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On
>>> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
>>> Sent: 23 June 2009 14:13
>>> To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
>>> Subject: Re: The Beginning of Institutional Repositories
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Sally Morris (Morris Associates)
wrote:
>>>
>>>> The perceived necessity for institutional and other
mandates does, in a
>>>> sense, reflect a failing - that researchers simply do not
see 'what is
>>>> in
>>> it
>>>> for them' and therefore do not, by and large, deposit
voluntarily. What
>>>> this tells us is an interesting question
>>>
>>> It is indeed an interesting question. I think a partial
answer is given
>>> by Alma Swan's surveys, which showed not only that 95% of
researchers
>>> would comply with a deposit mandate, but that 81% would do
so
>>> *willingly*, and only 14% reluctantly.
>>>
>>> To me, that suggests that researchers are inclined to
deposit, but not
>>> inclined enough to do so without a mandate from their
institutions or
>>> funders.
>>>
>>> The reasons most are *inclined* to do so, yet only a few
actually do it
>>> without a mandate are multiple. I have identified at least
34 of them:
>>>
>>> Harnad, S. (2006) Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno's
Paralysis, in
>>> Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical
and Economic
>>> Aspects, chapter 8. Chandos.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12094/
>>>
>>> The three chief worries are about doing so are that (1) it
might be
>>> illegal, (2) it might put their paper's acceptance for
publication by
>>> their preferred journals at risk, and (3) it might be
time-consuming.
>>>
>>> These -- and the 31 other worries -- are all groundless,
and individual
>>> researchers can be successfully informed about this, one by
one; but
>>> that is not a very practical route to reaching a deposit
rate of 100%
>>> worldwide. Official institutional and funder mandates
reassure
>>> researchers
>>> that there is nothing to worry about, their institutions
and funders
>>> back them, everyone is doing it, and, as they quickly
learn, the time
>>> it takes to deposit it is minuscule.
>>>
>>> Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2005) Keystroke Economy: A
>>> Study of the Time and Effort Involved in
Self-Archiving.
>>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/
>>>
>>> I am not saying that this fully resolves the puzzle of why
it is taking
>>> so
>>> long to reach the outcome that is so obviously and
demonstrably optimal
>>> for research and researchers, and fully within reach. We
will have to
>>> leave that to future historians and sociologists. What is
urgent now
>>> -- for the sake of research itself, as well as for
researchers, their
>>> institutions and funders, and the tax-payers that fund the
research --
>>> is that this optimal and inevitable outcome should be
facilitated and
>>> accelerated by mandates, so we reach it at long last. For
the longer we
>>> delay, the more research impact and progress keeps being
lost,
>>> needlessly.
>>>
>>> So full speed ahead with deposit mandates now, and then we
can study
>>> why it took so long -- and why it needed to be mandated at
all -- at
>>> our leisure, after we have universal OA.
>>>
>>> Stevan Harnad
>>
Received on Fri Jun 26 2009 - 22:02:12 BST