[Irtalk] Fwd: [GOAL] "Leave providing the OA to us..." 2

Hilton Gibson hilton.gibson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 10:01:26 SAST 2014


*Hilton Gibson*
Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator
JS Gericke Library
Room 1025D
Stellenbosch University
Private Bag X5036
South Africa

Tel: +27 21 808 4100 | Cell: +27 84 646 4758

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
Date: 17 February 2014 23:38
Subject: [GOAL] "Leave providing the OA to us..." 2
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>

On the charitable assumption that some Schol
are researchers, interested in maximizing OA, rather than just
publishers interested in persuading the research community to “leave
providing the OA [and the OA mandate information] to us [publishers],” here
is some further information about OA mandates:

The objective of OA mandates is to generate as much OA as possible, as soon
as possible. There are many different mandate models, varying in strength
and success.

The Emory and OSU mandates are variants of the Harvard default
copyright-reservation mandate model<https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/modelpolicy>.
This is not a very strong mandate model, because in principle it allows
opt-out on an individual case-by-case basis. The opt-out rate at Harvard is
only about 5%, however.

The version of the Harvard model adopted by Harvard
FAS<http://roarmap.eprints.org/75/> was
upgraded so the opt-out applies only to the copyright-reservation clause,
not to the immediate-deposit clause, but it still has no provisions for
monitoring compliance, and no consequences for non-compliance. The Harvard
FAS deposit rate is hence not much higher than the opt-out rate — despite
the fact that about 60% of Harvard’s annual research article output is
being made freely accessible somewhere on the web within a year of

The UK has stronger mandates, such as the Southampton ECS mandate, but the
strongest and most effective mandate model is the
/FNRS <http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/>/HEFCE<http://roarmap.eprints.org/834/>
in which immediate repository deposit (though not necessarily immediate OA)
is officially designated as the submission mechanism for both research
performance evaluation and research funding. Its annual deposit rate is over
80% and still rising <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/>. As a
consequence, other institutions are now upgrading to this mandate model.

All these parametric variations of OA mandates are currently being
systematically tested statistically for their success in generating OA in
ongoing studies. ROARMAP is just a database for registering and linking the
policies themselves, not for classifying or testing them.
MELIBEA<http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/?idioma=en> classifies
the policy details in more detail, but there is no point trying to
catalogue every possible mandate nuance in an index. These are not
publisher copyright-restriction details: they are pragmatic institutional
and funder policies, intended to generate as much OA as possible, as soon
as possible. And their current full text is always linked and available
together with each mandate’s specific details.

I have already posted some of the references for this ongoing research
above. Anyone interested in mandate strength and success (rather than just
in decrying “errors and misinformation” and in calling into question the
research community’s competence to adopt and index its own OA policies) can
consult these and other references — or, better still, they can use
, ROAR <http://roarmap.eprints.org/>,
 and BASE <http://www.base-search.net/about/en/> to do further analyses.
All findings are welcomed by all who are interested in reaching 100% OA as
soon as possible.

GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/irtalk/attachments/20140218/422c1192/attachment.html>

More information about the Irtalk mailing list