434 research outputs found
Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button
We describe the "Fair Dealing Button," a feature designed for authors who have deposited their papers in an Open Access Institutional Repository but have deposited them as "Closed Access" (meaning only the metadata are visible and retrievable, not the full eprint) rather than Open Access. The Button allows individual users to request and authors to provide a single eprint via semi-automated email. The purpose of the Button is to tide over research usage needs during any publisher embargo on Open Access and, more importantly, to make it possible for institutions to adopt the "Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" Mandate, without exceptions or opt-outs, instead of a mandate that allows delayed deposit or deposit waivers, depending on publisher permissions or embargoes (or no mandate at all). This is only "Almost-Open Access," but in facilitating exception-free immediate-deposit mandates it will accelerate the advent of universal Open Access
Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button
We describe the "Fair Dealing Button," a feature designed for authors who
have deposited their papers in an Open Access Institutional Repository but have
deposited them as "Closed Access" (meaning only the metadata are visible and
retrievable, not the full eprint) rather than Open Access. The Button allows
individual users to request and authors to provide a single eprint via
semi-automated email. The purpose of the Button is to tide over research usage
needs during any publisher embargo on Open Access and, more importantly, to
make it possible for institutions to adopt the
"Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" Mandate, without exceptions or opt-outs,
instead of a mandate that allows delayed deposit or deposit waivers, depending
on publisher permissions or embargoes (or no mandate at all). This is only
"Almost-Open Access," but in facilitating exception-free immediate-deposit
mandates it will accelerate the advent of universal Open Access.Comment: 12 pages, 5 figures, 32 references. To appear in "Dynamic Fair
Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online" (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren
Wershler, Eds.
Open access: what, where, when, how and why
The following are the eight most important features to ensure an effective, verifiable Open Access (OA) mandate: (1) All research funding agency OA Mandates need to specify clearly and explicitly that the deposit of each article must be in the author’s institutional repository (so the universities and research institutions can monitor their own output and ensure compliance as well as adopt mandates of their own for their unfunded research output). (2) All mandates should specify that the deposit (of the authors refereed, revised, accepted final draft) must be done immediately upon acceptance for publication (not on the date of publication, which is often much later, variable, not known to the author, and frequently does not even correspond to the journal issue’s published date of publication, if there is one). (3) All mandates should urge (but not require) authors to make their immediate-deposit immediately-OA. (4) All mandates should urge (but not require) authors to reserve the right to make their papers immediately-OA (and other re-use rights) in their contracts with their publishers (as in the Harvard-style mandates). (3) All mandates should shorten (or, better, not even mention) allowable OA embargoes (so as not to encourage publishers to adopt them). (6) All repositories should implement the automated "email eprint request" Button (for embargoed [non-OA] deposits). (7) All mandates should designate repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for performance review, research assessment, grant application, or grant renewal. (8) All repositories should implement rich usage and citation metrics in the institutional repositories as incentive for compliance
Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score
MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight
weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates
(registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication
years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual
conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of
Knowledge is deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when. We found
a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between MELIBEA score and
deposit percentage. We also found that for three of the eight MELIBEA
conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was
strongly associated with deposit percentage or deposit latency (immediate
deposit required, deposit required for performance evaluation, unconditional
opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement).
When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula for
mandate effectiveness to reflect the empirical association we had found, the
score's predictive power doubled (.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to
test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness,
but these findings already suggest that it would be useful for future mandates
to adopt these three conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and
thereby the growth of OA.Comment: 27 pages, 13 figures, 3 tables, 40 references, 7761 word
Across the pond: alternative ways of obtaining scholarly articles and the impact on traditional publishing models, from a UK/European perspective
This column examines the growth and impact of open access (OA) with emphasis on a UK/European perspective. It considers the various colors of OA, the impact on authors, institutions, and funders, and speculates on the future of traditional academic publishing. The author considers the pros and cons of a variety of OA methods--including the so-called ‘guerrilla OA’ services and sites-- and discusses the current mandates in place for the UK’s upcoming Research Excellence Framework exercise, which will report back on the research outputs produced in universities between 2014-2020
Creating and Curating the Cognitive Commons: Southampton’s Contribution
The Web is becoming humankind's Cognitive Commons, where knowledge is created and curated collaboratively. We trace its origins from the advent of language around 300,000 years ago to a recent series of milestones to which the University of Southampton has contributed, helping Open Access (OA) Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA IR contents, and OA mandates to grow through the posting of the Subversive Proposal in 1994, the creation of CogPrints in 1997, the OpCit citation-linking project in 1999, the creation of the Eprints IR software in 2000, the Citebase citation-linking engine in 2001, the ROAR repository in 2002, the adoption and promotion of OA mandates (beginning with the ECS Southampton mandate, the world's first, in 2002), the creation of the ROARMAP mandates registry in 2003, and the ongoing bibliography of the Open Access Impact Advantage since 2004
What Is To Be Done About Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From Federally Funded Research? (Response to US OSTP RFI)
The minimum should be to mandate that: (i) the fundee’s revised, accepted refereed final draft (ii) of all refereed journal articles (including refereed conference articles) resulting from the funded research must be (iii) deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication (iv) in the fundee’s institutional repository. (v) Access to the deposit must be made gratis OA (online access free for all) immediately (no OA embargo) wherever possible (over 60 % of journals already endorse immediate gratis OA self-archiving)
Worldwide open access: UK leadership?
The web is destined to become humankind's cognitive commons, where digital knowledge is jointly created and freely shared. The UK has been a leader in the global movement toward open access (OA) to research but recently its leadership has been derailed by the joint influence of the publishing industry lobby from without and well-intentioned but premature and unhelpful over-reaching from within the OA movement itself. The result has been the extremely counterproductive ‘Finch Report’ followed by a new draft of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) OA mandate, downgrading the role of cost-free OA self-archiving of research publications (‘green OA’) in favor of paying subscription publishers over and above subscriptions, out of scarce research funds, in exchange for making single articles OA (‘hybrid gold OA’). The motivation of the new policy is to reform publication and to gain certain re-use rights (CC-BY), but the likely effect would be researcher resistance, very little OA and a waste of research funds. There is still time to fix the RCUK mandate and restore the UK's leadership by taking a few very specific steps to clarify and strengthen the green component by adding a mechanism for monitoring and verifying compliance, with consequences for non-compliance, along lines also being adopted in the EC and the US
Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving
Universal Open Access (OA) is fully within the reach of the global research community: Research institutions and funders need merely mandate (green) OA self-archiving of the final, refereed drafts of all journal articles immediately upon acceptance for publication. The money to pay for gold OA publishing will only become available if universal green OA eventually makes subscriptions unsustainable. Paying for gold OA pre-emptively today, without first having mandated green OA not only squanders scarce money, but it delays the attainment of universal OA
Harnad Comments on Canada’s NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy
The Draft Canadian Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy is excellent in preserving fundees’ free choice of journal, and afree choice about whether or not to use the research funds to pay to publish in an OA journal. However, deposit in the fundee’s institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication needs to be required, whether or not the fundee chooses to publish in an OA journal and whether or not access to the deposit is embargoed for 12 months. This makes it possible for the fundee’s institution to monitor and ensure timely compliance with the funder OA policy and it also facilitates providing individual eprints by the fundee to individual eprint requestors for research purposes during any embargo. Institutional repository deposits can then be automatically exported to any institutional-external repositories the fundee, funding agency or institution wishes. On no account should compliance with funding agency conditions be left to the publisher rather than the fundee and the fundee’s institution
- …