Re: Yes, the Commission~R's approach could be improved

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:19:50 -0400

    [ 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. ]

Yes, the EC can and should collect the final refereed draft of all EC funded
research. It remains only to specify how that should be done:

It should be a part of the fulfillment condition on the recipient of all EC
research funding -- both the funded researchers and their institutions --
that all refereed research publications resulting from the funding must be
self-archived in the fundee's institutional repository. They (or their
metadata) can then be harvested/collected/imported/exported to the EC from
the IRs:

How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates

Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?

Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien, A.,
Hardy, R. and Rowland, F. (2005) Delivery, Management and Access Model for
E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education. JISC
Technical report.

Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien, A.,
Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S. (2005) Developing a model for e-prints
and open access journal content in UK further and higher education. Learned
Publishing, 18 (1). pp. 25-40.

Stevan Harnad

On 27-Apr-08, at 1:54 PM, N. Miradon wrote:

> A kind correspondent has drawn to my attention the European Union's Court
> Of
> Auditors' Special Report No 9/2007 "Evaluating the EU Research and
> Technological Development (RTD) framework programmes ? could the
> Commission?s approach be improved?" published 30 January 2008 (Official
> Journal of the European Union C 2008/26/01; 38 pages).
> I dont think that this Report has been discussed here previously. The
> details are rather above my head, but if you are interested in Activity
> Based Budgeting, Evaluation Of Research, Evaluation Strategies,
> Intervention
> Logic, Objective Setting, Performance Indicators, ... , you might well
> find
> it useful to download the original [1].
> And if you are interested in Open Access, see in particular paras 72-79
> (pages 14-15), where the Court criticises the Commission. It seems that
> the
> Commission was unable to give the Court of Auditors a citation analysis,
> or
> even a list of publications, for the research that it has funded.
> In reply to this criticism the Commission promises a new IT system (paras
> 72-74, page 36).
> As readers will remember [2], the Commission is already collecting "... an
> electronic copy of the published version or the final manuscript" of every
> publication (FP7 Grant Agreement - Annex II General Conditions - Version
> 20.12.06 ISC clean 3) [3].
> My correspondent suggests that the new IT system should simply take this
> Repository of All FP7 Publications, and make it OAI-compliant, and
> harvestable.
> Then when the Commission's performance in FP7 is evaluated, instead of
> being
> criticised by the Court of Auditors, the Commission might even find itself
> being congratulated.
> N Miradon
> [1]
> [2]
> -access-forum&D=1&F=l&O=D&P=46265
> [3]
Received on Sun Apr 27 2008 - 19:35:19 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:18 GMT