Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Interesting news posted by Steven Harnad on the sparc-oaforum

The Catholic University of Louvain has adopted a self-archiving mandate with the same incentives and obligations as the University of Liege model.

In its meeting of 2 July the Academic Council of UCK adopted a policy of mandatory deposit in its DIAL repository of all bibliographic metadata as well as full-texts as of 1 January 2013. As of that date, the Academic Council will only consider duly deposited publications in its internal research performance evaluations and that deposit will also be one of the criteria in the allocation of institutional research funds. 


Would this ever work at the University of Guelph?

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Wiley Moves Towards Broader Open Access Licence

For Immediate Release

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., today announced revised licensing arrangements for proprietary journals published under the Wiley Open Access program. The journals will adopt the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence which allows commercial use of published articles.
The Wiley Open Access portfolio also includes journals published with society partners, many of which will similarly transfer to the Creative Commons Attribution licence.

Wiley is responding to recent developments in funder and government policies and supports the sustainable evolution of scientific publishing. The change will be implemented immediately.
Rachel Burley, Vice President and Director, Open Access, commented, “Wiley is committed to meeting the evolving needs of the authors who wish to provide open access to the published articles that convey the results of their research.”

Burley continued, “Our announcement today concerns Wiley’s fully open access journals. We are also reviewing the licensing arrangements for our hybrid program OnlineOpen, our open access option for individual articles published in subscription journals. In consultation with our publishing partners, we aim to continue to develop and deliver sustainable open access products providing author choice and high levels of service.”

In the first instance, the journals moving to the CC-BY licence are Brain and Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, MicrobiologyOpen, Cancer Medicine, Food Science & Nutrition, Evolutionary Applications, Geoscience Data Journal and EMBO Molecular Medicine. The CC-BY licence allows (with the correct attribution of the original creator) for the copying, distribution and transmission of the work. Adaption and commercial use is also permitted.

More information about Wiley’s open access initiatives is available online.

Sounds good right? The reponse that came from Peter Suber over the sparc-oaforum is worth a critical read:

Wiley publishes nearly 1500 journals:

1064 of them are Wiley-Blackwell journals according to SHERPA-Romeo:

And 246 of the John Wiley and Sons journals according to SHERPA-Romeo:

Wiley Open Access publishes 12 pure-Gold OA journals (cost c. $2000 - $3000):

In addition the Wiley OnlineOpen Hybrid Gold OA option (cost c. $3000) is available for some 1240 Wiley journals (80%), eight of them now offering CC-BY.

The SHERPA-Romeo information (as well as the Wiley information) on Wiley's policy on un-embargoed Gratis Green OA self-archiving is now quite complicated and difficult to understand, so let me put a very simple, straight-forward question to John Wiley & Sons (Wiley-1) and to Wiley-Blackwell (Wiley-2) publishers:

Does Wiley-1/Wiley-2, like Springer, formally recognize its authors' right to make their final, refereed drafts OA immediately upon publication (no embargo) by self-archiving them in their institutional OA repository (Green OA)?

If the answer is yes, then the 1240 Wiley paid Gold OA options and the eight of them with CC-BY are a very welcome and positive step.

If, unlike Springer (which also offers paid Gold, both full and hybrid), Wiley-1/Wiley-2 embargoes Green OA, then Wiley's Gold OA options (including CC-BY) are a Trojan Horse, and a highly expensive one, blocking Green OA in order to force authors who want to provide immediate OA to pay for it, even though institutional subscriptions are paying publication costs in full.

In the latter case, CC-BY is an (easy) sop, providing something that only a few sub-fields need (CC-BY) at the cost of denying all fields what they urgently need (OA) unless they are able and willing to pay Wiley even more money for it.

A clear, unequivocal answer from Wiley-1/Wiley-2 could settle this at once.

And then we'll know whether Wiley's recent PR is indeed progress for OA, or another attempt to block it (until it comes on the publisher's financial terms).

 - Stevan Harnad

Monday, August 13, 2012

Publishers allowing the deposition of their published version/PDF in Institutional Repositories

Atrium Screencapture

If an academic author wants to put their research articles in an institutional repository (IR) such as the UG Atrium, they are faced with a time consuming and sometimes complex task of publisher policy verification. Some publishers prohibit authors from using their own articles in an insitutional repository. Others allow it, but only under certain conditions, while others are quite happy for authors to show their work in this way.

A significant development for authors and for repositories was the development of the SHERPA-RoMEO database . This database saves a lot of time and headache by providing the details of publisher copyright policies and policies on self archiving. Prior to the existence of the database, authors had to spend time searching publisher web sites looking for information and copyright transfer agreements. Often, there was no information to be found on the web site and publishers had to be individually contacted. The time and effort required was off putting and discouraging.

The development of the Romeo database as a searchable database of publisher's policies regarding the self- archiving of journal articles on the web and in Open Access repositories was therefore a huge step forward.

According to Steven Harnad "the purpose of OA self-archiving is enhanced access, usage and impact, *not* the digital preservation of the publisher’s PDF". He suggests that the author’s postprint is the draft with the fewest publisher constraints and that the default option should be the author’s final, peer-reviewed, revised, accepted draft (the postprint), not necessarily or even preferentially the publisher’s PDF. But, in terms of retrospective archiving, the PDF is often the simplest quickest option for faculty who are just getting started archiving their work in an IR. and it is still great to know that Romeo generates a separate list of Publishers allowing the deposition of their published version/PDF in Institutional Repositories.

Check out everything Romeo can do...

K. Jane Burpee, Associate Librarian,
Research Enterprise & Scholarly Communication
Coordinator of ETDs, Campus Author Recognition & Open Access Advocacy
Research Enterprise Services for FRAN, CBS, CPES, & OVC