My comments, from the Australian perspective
Arthur Sale
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Sunday, 24 December 2006 12:37 PM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Australian Research
> Council Expects Fundees to Self-Archive
>
> SPARC
>
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/SPARCcomment-Australia.pdf
>
> has given the Australian Research Council
>
> http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP08_FundingRules.pdf
>
> the following advice:
>
> > Research funders should include in all grants and contracts a
> > provision reserving for the government relevant non-exclusive
> > rights (as described below) to research papers and data.
>
> Fine, but this is not a prerequisite for self-archiving, nor for
mandating
> self-archiving. It is enough if ARC clearly mandates deposit; the rest
> will take care of itself.
A sensible fundee will take this action; how sensible they are will
remain to be seen. The unsensible ones will have some explaining to do.
ARC could have given advice like this, but didn't.
>
> > All peer-reviewed research papers and associated data stemming
> > from public funding should be required to be maintained in stable
> > digital repositories that permit free, timely public access,
> > interoperability with other resources on the Internet, and
> > long-term preservation. Exemptions should be strictly limited and
> > justified.
>
> That, presumably, is what the ARC self-archiving mandate amounts to.
Exactly. And every university in Australia will have access to such a
repository by end 2007. 50% already do.
>
> > Users should be permitted to read, print, search, link to, or
> > crawl these research outputs. In addition, policies that make
> > possible the download and manipulation of text and data by
> > software tools should be considered.
>
> All unnecessary; all comes with the territory, if self-archiving is
> mandated. (The policy does not need extra complications: a clear
> self-archiving mandate simply needs adoption and implementation.)
Totally agree with Stevan
>
> > Deposit of their works in qualified digital archives should be
> > required of all funded investigators, extramural and intramural
> > alike.
>
> Yes, the self-archiving mandate should apply to all funded research.
It does.
>
> > While this responsibility might be delegated to a journal
> > or other agent, to assure accountability the responsibility should
> > ultimately be that of the funds recipient.
>
> Not clear what this refers to, but, yes, it is the fundee who should
> be mandated to self-archive.
Yes the onus is on the fundee(s), and especially the principal
investigator who has to submit the Final Report.
>
> > Public access to research outputs should be provided as early as
> > possible after peer review and acceptance for publication. For
> > research papers, this should be not later than six months after
> > publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This embargo period
> > represents a reasonable, adequate, and fair compromise between the
> > public interest and the needs of journals.
>
> The self-archiving mandate that ARC should adopt is the ID/OA mandate
>
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
>
> whereby deposit is mandatory immediately upon acceptance for
publication,
> and the embargo (if any, 6 months max) is applicable only to the date
at
> which access to the deposit is set as Open Access (rather than Closed
> Access), not to the date of deposit itself. During any Closed Access
> embargo interval, each repository's semi-automatic EMAIL EPRINT button
> will cover all research usage needs.
>
> http://www.eprints.org/news/features/request_button.php
ARC is silent on timing, but I expect a quick transition to the ID/OA
policy by fundees. Anything else is a pain - it easier to do this than
run around like a headless chook later. The RQF will encourage instant
mandate because of its citation metrics. NOTE ESPECIALLY THAT THE ARC
GUIDELINES DO NOT SIT IN A VACUUM BY THEMSELVES. The National Health and
Medical Research Council and the Research Quality Framework (RQF) are
equally important.
>
> > We also recommend that, as a means of further accelerating
innovation, a
> > portion of each grant be earmarked to cover the cost of publishing
> > papers in peer-reviewed open-access journals, if authors so choose.
This
> > would provide potential readers with immediate access to results,
rather
> > than after an embargo period.
>
> The ID/OA mandate -- together with the EMAIL EPRINT button -- already
> cover all immediate-access needs without needlessly diverting any
> research money at this time. The time to pay for publication will be if
> and when self-archiving causes subscriptions to collapse, and if that
> time ever comes, it will be the saved institutional subscription funds
> themselves that will pay for the publication costs, with no need to
> divert already-scarce funds from research. To divert money from
research
> now, however, is to needlessly double-pay for OA, which can already be
> provided by author self-archiving without any further cost.
This recommendation will certainly be disregarded, correctly in my
opinion. ARC has never funded publication costs and does not intend to
start now. Australian universities are already funded for publication and
subscription costs through the normal block grants and research
infrastructure funding. All they have to do is redirect some of their
funding as they see fit. The recommendation might accelerate innovation,
but it is not the ARC's job to fund innovation in the publishing
industry.
>
>
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we1
> 52.htm
>
> Stevan Harnad
Have a good and safe Christmas.
Arthur Sale
Received on Sun Dec 24 2006 - 13:55:59 GMT