On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, David Goodman wrote:
> CERN, with [a self-archiving mandate] can not get beyond 90%
90% is a hell of a lot better than the unmandated 15% baseline, so just
what is your point, David? (I'll let Jens Vigen or Joanne Yeomans CERN
answer about the last 10%.)
> even the strongest of the mandates, the Wellcome, accepts a six month embargo.
Wellcome's is neither the strongest of the actual mandates nor the
strongest possible one:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
The strongest possible mandate is a mandate to provide OA immediately
upon acceptance for publication:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/stronger-OApolicy.htm
But the optimal mandate (because it moots all delays, embargoes and
legal worries) is a slightly weaker mandate (but still stronger than
Wellcome's): The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (IA/OA) Mandate,
and that's the one Peter Suber and I, and most of the others who have
carefully thought through all the contingencies are strongly advocating:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/weaker-OApolicy.htm
Note that both of the above were drafted collaboratively by Alma Swan,
Arthur Sale, Subbiah Arunachalam, Peter Suber and me 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
> Authors will only publish OA if OA is the single possible way
> to publish. One way is 100% funding of OA journals,
> which will make the publishers very happy, for it guarantees the
> continuing survival of even the lowest-quality journal. The other
> is the replacement of the current journal publishing system altogether.
And the third way, and the fastest and surest, is the ID/OA Mandate.
Amen.
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sun Oct 08 2006 - 03:58:49 BST