Australian research funder ARC announces its open access policy, effective immediately! Research publications must be posted openly on institutional repositories within 12 months of publication (unless published in an open access journal, so that it's already open) http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/open_access.htm
8 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 5 previous comments
- But Peter, it seems to me that the Harvard OA policy has much the same loophole as ARC.
Until and unless Harvard and MIT report OA rates that show that their policy is nevertheless doing substantially better than the default worldwide baseline un-mandated deposit rate, and something closer to the 80-90% OA rate of Liege's ID/OA mandate -- and until and unless Harvard's no-waiver deposit clause is actually enforced in some way -- neither ARC nor Harvard have much more than metadata.(Harvard is only richer by a notional formal right from which the author has not formally opted out, but no full text in hand, and no OA.)
It's OA if and when the full-text is OA -- or at least almost-OA with the help of the Button, which, as far as I know, Harvard, unlike Liege, does not even implement (but Harvard would implement it in vain, if the papers were not being immediately deposited, in Closed Access at the very least).
Harvard differs from ARC only in that, if an author does not formally opt out (and only 5% do), Harvard formally holds the right to make the full-text OA (after a year at most). But if it does not even hold 95% of the full texts, and does not make them OA within a year, then I think the ARC and Harvard policies are not that different.
If Harvard and ARC at least adopted and enforced immediate-deposit, without an opt-out option, plus the Button, then they would have Liege's 80-90% deposit, and at least 80-90% immediate Almost-OA...
StevanJan 11, 2013
- : You're simply wrong here. The Harvard policies close the loophole I was describing. Harvard faculty retain the right to authorize OA. That's what the ARC failed to do, and that's what I was talking about.
I can't tell whether you misunderstand the Harvard policy or misunderstood my criticism of ARC. But please stop spreading misinformation about Harvard-style policies.Jan 12, 2013
- http://bit.ly/goodoa>. But it's an independent variable. A school can link repository deposit with internal review, as Liege does, whether or not it retains the rights to authorize OA, as Harvard does.: Separate point. I love the Liege policy linking deposit in the repository with evaluation for promotion and tenure. Stuart Shieber and I recommend that approach in our guide to good practices <
If you're saying that Liege has a high deposit rate because it links deposit with internal review, I'd be inclined to agree. If you're saying that Liege has a high deposit rate because it departs from the Harvard model and chooses not to retain the rights to authorize OA, then I'd challenge you to produce a whiff of evidence.Jan 12, 2013
Let me try to say it in one sentence plus one question:
1. Both the Harvard policy and the ARC policy allow author opt-out (but the opt-out rate of the Harvard policy is low -- 5% -- meaning that for 95% of Harvard articles, Harvard formally retains the right to make them OA.
2. The Harvard (FAS) policy was adopted in 2008: What percentage of the Harvard (FAS) articles published since 2008 is OA, and when were they made OA (relative to when they were published)?
If the answer is that close to 95% were made OA (within a recent time from the date of publication) then my criticism was absurd and confused, and I apologize (with relief at being having been wrong).
But if the answer is that the Harvard OA rate is closer to the worldwide un-mandated baseline of 20% then perhaps formally retaining legal rights is not enough. After all, 60% of journals have allowed their authors to retain the legal right to make their articles OA immediately upon publication, and yet only the baseline 20% having been doing so, except if mandated.
That's why we need OA mandates. And that's why %OA is the only measure of a mandate's effectiveness and success.
If Harvard authors don't deposit and/or Harvard doesn't make the deposits OA (or waits for a time period of the same order as the 40% of publishers who embargo OA) then the retained right is just a formality, is it not, rather than being OA?
I took your criticism of ARC to be that ARC authors may opt out of compliance if their publisher does not allow compliance. This seems the same as the Harvard policy.
Let us assume that, like Harvard, only 5% of ARC authors opt out. Then the question is, again: What percentage will actually deposit, and when will their papers be made OA?
Both policies lack any mechanism for ensuring immediate deposit. Harvard, unlike ARC, formally retains the right to make the deposits OA immediately (if the author does not opt out). But without the deposits, nothing is made OA.
I do not see a practical difference. It seems to me that formal OA rights-retention is not the objective: OA is.
I completely agree that "a school can link repository deposit with internal review, as Liege does, whether or not it retains the rights to authorize OA, as Harvard does."
However, the Liege policy actually generates a very high percentage of immediate OA (and Almost-OA during the embargo, with the Button).
Rights-retention alone does not do that, irrespective of opt-out rate.
that Liege has a high deposit rate because it departs from the Harvard model and chooses not to retain the rights to authorize OA, then I'd challenge you to produce a whiff of evidence.
I definitely do not say that "Liege has a high deposit rate because it departs from the Harvard model and chooses not to retain the rights to authorize OA."
Liege has an ID/OA policy with the Button and an effective enforcement mechanism, but without rights-retention. If Liege also had rights-retention (with opt-out), it would have an even stronger OA policy than it already has.
But if, like Harvard, Liege had rights-retention (with opt-out) but without ID/OA, the Button and the effective enforcement mechanism, then it would have a much weaker OA policy, and much less OA and Almost-OA.
Unless I am wrong about Harvard's OA rate (and, believe me, I would infinitely prefer to be wrong than right), I would say that Harvard has a weaker OA policy, and needs to adopt the Liege OA/OA policy, Button, and enforcement mechanism (and not as an inpendent variable, but as the core component for an effective OA policy).
StevanJan 12, 2013
- Stevan: That's one sentence and one question?
We must separate the issues. You were wrong to say that Harvard policies have the same loophole as the ARC loophole. When I pointed out that you were wrong, you changed the subject and started talking about deposit rates, email buttons, and the like. Let's get clear on the one question of fact I was raising. The Harvard policies do not have the same loophole as the ARC policy. On the contrary, the Harvard policies close the loophole that the ARC policy leaves open. That's the essence of the Harvard policies. Under the Harvard policies, Harvard faculty retain the rights to authorize OA, Under the ARC policy, ARC grantees do not retain those rights. That's all that I was talking about. Retaining those rights is a strength in the Harvard policy, and failure to retain those rights is a weakness in the ARC policy.
The other matters all deserve discussion. But to raise them instead of addressing the one narrow point I was talking about is confusing and evasive.
BTW, there's a huge difference between a publisher opt-out, which the ARC allows, and an author opt-out, which Harvard allows. But that too is a separate issue that we don't have to address unless you think that publisher opt-outs and author opt-outs are the same.Jan 12, 2013
- OA RIGHTS AND OA WRONGS
Peter, I don't think I changed the subject at all. I said, and still say, that the ARC policy and the Harvard policy have the very same loophole: The author (not the publisher) can opt out of complying with the policy. That means -- in both cases -- that if the publisher forbids OA, and the author wishes to comply with the publisher, the author can opt out of the OA "requirement."
Yes, the formal right to make OA can be separated from the act of making OA, but our target (is it not?) is the act of making OA, not just the formal right to make OA.
Another way to put it is this:
If merely having the formal right to make an article OA had been sufficient to induce authors to make their articles OA then we would have had at least 60% OA worldwide since about 2004. See http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html and http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3672.html
But, as we know, having the right to make their articles OA did not prove sufficient to induce most authors to make their articles OA.
That's why the OA mandate movement began.
But a mandate is only successful if it generates OA -- not if it only generates the formal right to make articles OA.
So my question remains: 95% of Harvard FAS authors have the formal right to make their articles OA since 2008: What percentage have actually made them OA, and when?
If we keep talking about formal rights-retention instead of concrete OA provision, I am afraid we are talking at cross purposes.Jan 12, 2013
Add a comment...