Difference between revisions of "SUNScholar/Open Access/Good Practices"

From Libopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
  '''[[SUNScholar/Open_Access|Back to Open Access]]'''
 
  '''[[SUNScholar/Open_Access|Back to Open Access]]'''
 
</center>
 
</center>
 +
 +
===[http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html Which Green OA Mandate should an institution adopt?]===
 +
ID/OA:
 +
 +
[http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-GENERIC-RATIONALE-AND-MODEL-FOR-UNIVERSITY-OPEN-ACCESS-SELF-ARCHIVING-MANDATE.html The Immediate Deposit, Optional Access-setting (ID/OA) mandate] immediately guarantees at least 63% OA plus 37% Almost-OA, moots all objections on copyright grounds, and does not put the author's choice of journal at risk by requiring individual licensing negotiations by the would-be author with the publisher (with no guarantee of a successful outcome). The other alternative candidate mandates are:
 +
 +
ID/IA:
 +
 +
The Immediate Deposit/Immediate Access (ID/IA) mandate is stronger than ID/OA. But how can such a mandate manage to reach consensus on adoption as long as 37% of journals don't endorse immediate OA self-archiving? (Invariably this has meant having to allow an author opt-out or waiver for such cases, in which case the policy is no longer a mandate at all -- i.e., it is weaker than ID/OA. Hence not one of the existing mandates to date is ID/IA.)
 +
 +
ID/DA:
 +
 +
The usual compromise, therefore, is to allow access embargoes, with or without a cap on the maximal allowable length. But an Immediate Deposit/Delayed Access (ID/DA) mandate, with no cap on the allowable delay (embargo) is simply identical to ID/OA! Adding a cap on the maximal allowable embargo delay is splendid, but that's just ID/OA with an embargo cap. (So if an institution can reach successful consensus on this stronger mandate (capped ID/DA), they should by all means adopt it; but if not, they should just go ahead and adopt ID/OA.)
 +
 +
DD/DA:
 +
 +
Next there is Delayed Deposit/Delayed Access (DD/DA), in which the deposit itself may be delayed until the embargo elapses, instead of being done immediately upon acceptance for publication, as in ID/OA. But with or without an embargo cap, DD/DA is in fact needlessly weaker than ID/OA, because it arbitrarily loses the 37% Almost-OA that authors can provide semi-automatically via the button, until the date at which each embargo elapses. (DD/DA further risks needlessly losing a lot of the 63% OA as well, by not requiring immediate deposit in any case.)
 +
 +
===The Harvard Good Policy Practice References===
 +
See: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/8603
  
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies Preface]
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies Preface]
Line 10: Line 30:
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Talking_about_a_policy Talking about a policy]
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Talking_about_a_policy Talking about a policy]
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Revising_this_guide Revising this guide]
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Revising_this_guide Revising this guide]
−
* [[Other formats for this guide|Other&nbsp;formats&nbsp;for&nbsp;this&nbsp;guide]]
+
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Other_formats_for_this_guide Other formats for this guide]
−
* [[Additional resources]]
+
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Additional_resources Additional resources]
 +
 
 +
===UNESCO Guidelines===
 +
*http://sparceurope.org/policy-guidelines-for-the-development-and-promotion-of-open-access
 +
*http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communication-materials/publications/full-list/policy-guidelines-for-the-development-and-promotion-of-open-access/
 +
 
 +
===How to deal with embargoes===
 +
See copy of recent [http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2014-May/002752.html GOAL list email] below:
 +
<pre>
 +
The two further mechanisms to reduce/eliminate and above all detoxify OA embargoes are
 +
 
 +
(1) to require institutional repository *deposit* immediately upon acceptance for publication (whether or not OA is embargoed) and
 +
 
 +
(2) to implement the institutional repository's email eprint request;
 +
 
 +
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy
 +
http://wiki.eprints.org/w/RequestEprint
 +
 
 +
Stevan Harnad
 +
</pre>
 +
 
 +
[[File:Request-copy.png|border]]
 +
 
 +
===References===
 +
*[[Media:Good-oa-practices-2015.pdf|2015 - SHIEBER AND SUBER - GOOD PRACTICES FOR UNIVERSITY OPEN ACCESS POLICIES]]
 +
* http://bit.ly/oa-overview
 +
* http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/why-oa.shtml
 +
* http://www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/WhatIsOA.pdf
 +
* http://www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/OALibraries2.pdf
 +
* http://www.eprints.org/openaccess
 +
* http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.impact
 +
* http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html
 +
*http://www.ifla.org/strategic-plan/key-initiatives/digital-content/oa
 +
*http://www.openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/iflas-open-access-task-force-established
 +
 
 +
===[[SUNScholar/References|Further References]]===
  
−
;References
+
===Timeline of significant events leading up to the adoption of open access academic repositories===
−
<font color="red">'''<big>http://bit.ly/goodoa</big>'''</font>
+
{|class="wikitable sortable" width="50%"
 +
|-
 +
!Date
 +
!Initiative
 +
|-
 +
|1994/06
 +
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Proposal Steven Harnard's Subversive Proposal]
 +
|-
 +
|2002/02
 +
|[http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)]
 +
|-
 +
|2002/05
 +
|[http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/e/e1/Tdr-oclc.pdf Trusted Digital Repositories]
 +
|-
 +
|2002/06
 +
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Archives_Initiative Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Version 2]
 +
|-
 +
|2003/10
 +
|[[SUNScholar/Open_Access/Berlin_Declaration|Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities]]
 +
|-
 +
|2007/01
 +
|[http://www.sciencemodel.net The Scientific Communication Life-Cycle Model]
 +
|-
 +
|2008/04
 +
|[http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/6/68/Framework3.pdf NISO Good Digital Collections Framework]
 +
|-
 +
|2009/08
 +
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAIS The Open Archival Information System (OAIS)]
 +
|-
 +
|2010/06
 +
|[http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/5/51/Managing_Digital_Collections.pdf Managing Digital Collections]
 +
|-
 +
|2010/07
 +
|[http://www.trusteddigitalrepository.eu/Site/Trusted%20Digital%20Repository.html MOU on Trusted Digital Repositories]
 +
|-
 +
|2010/10
 +
|[http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/4806 Stellenbosch University Library Open Access Seminar]
 +
|-
 +
|2011/06
 +
|[http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/e/e8/217-repanovici-en.pdf Education and Training for Digital Repository Manager]
 +
|-
 +
|2011/09
 +
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_Repositories_Audit_%26_Certification Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC)]
 +
|-
 +
|2011/10
 +
|[http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/17764 Stellenbosch University Library Open Access Seminar]
 +
|-
 +
|2012/06
 +
|[http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/f/fb/Scecsal2012_resolutions_.pdf SCECSAL Resolution]
 +
|-
 +
|2012/09
 +
|[[BOAI|Budapest Open Access Initiative Recommendations (BOAIR)]] - Updated from 2002/02
 +
|-
 +
|2012/09
 +
|[http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/d/dd/Levels-of-Digital-Preservation-draft-handout-v3.pdf Levels of Digital Preservation - Draft V2]
 +
|-
 +
|2012/09
 +
|[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies Good practices for university open-access policies]
 +
|-
 +
|2012/10
 +
|[http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communication-materials/publications/full-list/policy-guidelines-for-the-development-and-promotion-of-open-access Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access]
 +
|-
 +
|2012/11
 +
|[http://www.berlin10.org/workshops/16-workshops/72-w02.html Stellenbosch University Berlin 10 Open Access Conference - Workshop 2]
 +
|}

Latest revision as of 11:31, 18 March 2016

Back to Open Access

Which Green OA Mandate should an institution adopt?

ID/OA:

The Immediate Deposit, Optional Access-setting (ID/OA) mandate immediately guarantees at least 63% OA plus 37% Almost-OA, moots all objections on copyright grounds, and does not put the author's choice of journal at risk by requiring individual licensing negotiations by the would-be author with the publisher (with no guarantee of a successful outcome). The other alternative candidate mandates are:

ID/IA:

The Immediate Deposit/Immediate Access (ID/IA) mandate is stronger than ID/OA. But how can such a mandate manage to reach consensus on adoption as long as 37% of journals don't endorse immediate OA self-archiving? (Invariably this has meant having to allow an author opt-out or waiver for such cases, in which case the policy is no longer a mandate at all -- i.e., it is weaker than ID/OA. Hence not one of the existing mandates to date is ID/IA.)

ID/DA:

The usual compromise, therefore, is to allow access embargoes, with or without a cap on the maximal allowable length. But an Immediate Deposit/Delayed Access (ID/DA) mandate, with no cap on the allowable delay (embargo) is simply identical to ID/OA! Adding a cap on the maximal allowable embargo delay is splendid, but that's just ID/OA with an embargo cap. (So if an institution can reach successful consensus on this stronger mandate (capped ID/DA), they should by all means adopt it; but if not, they should just go ahead and adopt ID/OA.)

DD/DA:

Next there is Delayed Deposit/Delayed Access (DD/DA), in which the deposit itself may be delayed until the embargo elapses, instead of being done immediately upon acceptance for publication, as in ID/OA. But with or without an embargo cap, DD/DA is in fact needlessly weaker than ID/OA, because it arbitrarily loses the 37% Almost-OA that authors can provide semi-automatically via the button, until the date at which each embargo elapses. (DD/DA further risks needlessly losing a lot of the 63% OA as well, by not requiring immediate deposit in any case.)

The Harvard Good Policy Practice References

See: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/8603

UNESCO Guidelines

How to deal with embargoes

See copy of recent GOAL list email below: 

The two further mechanisms to reduce/eliminate and above all detoxify OA embargoes are

(1) to require institutional repository *deposit* immediately upon acceptance for publication (whether or not OA is embargoed) and

(2) to implement the institutional repository's email eprint request;

https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy
http://wiki.eprints.org/w/RequestEprint

Stevan Harnad

Request-copy.png

References

Further References

Timeline of significant events leading up to the adoption of open access academic repositories

Date Initiative
1994/06 Steven Harnard's Subversive Proposal
2002/02 Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
2002/05 Trusted Digital Repositories
2002/06 Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Version 2
2003/10 Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities
2007/01 The Scientific Communication Life-Cycle Model
2008/04 NISO Good Digital Collections Framework
2009/08 The Open Archival Information System (OAIS)
2010/06 Managing Digital Collections
2010/07 MOU on Trusted Digital Repositories
2010/10 Stellenbosch University Library Open Access Seminar
2011/06 Education and Training for Digital Repository Manager
2011/09 Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC)
2011/10 Stellenbosch University Library Open Access Seminar
2012/06 SCECSAL Resolution
2012/09 Budapest Open Access Initiative Recommendations (BOAIR) - Updated from 2002/02
2012/09 Levels of Digital Preservation - Draft V2
2012/09 Good practices for university open-access policies
2012/10 Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access
2012/11 Stellenbosch University Berlin 10 Open Access Conference - Workshop 2
Retrieved from "http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/index.php?title=SUNScholar/Open_Access/Good_Practices&oldid=41665"