Difference between revisions of "SUNScholar/Open Access/Good Practices"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m (→References) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
</center> | </center> | ||
| − | + | ===[http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html Which Green OA Mandate should an institution adopt?]=== | |
ID/OA: | ID/OA: | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
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.) | 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 | See: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/8603 | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Additional_resources 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://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/ | *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: | See copy of recent [http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2014-May/002752.html GOAL list email] below: | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
[[File:Request-copy.png|border]] | [[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://bit.ly/oa-overview | ||
* http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/why-oa.shtml | * http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/why-oa.shtml | ||
| Line 65: | Line 66: | ||
*http://www.openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/iflas-open-access-task-force-established | *http://www.openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/iflas-open-access-task-force-established | ||
| − | + | ===[[SUNScholar/References|Further References]]=== | |
| + | |||
| + | ===Timeline of significant events leading up to the adoption of open access academic repositories=== | ||
{|class="wikitable sortable" width="50%" | {|class="wikitable sortable" width="50%" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 131: | Line 134: | ||
|[http://www.berlin10.org/workshops/16-workshops/72-w02.html Stellenbosch University Berlin 10 Open Access Conference - Workshop 2] | |[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
Contents
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
- Preface
- Drafting a policy
- Adopting a policy
- Implementing a policy
- Filling the repository
- Talking about a policy
- Revising this guide
- Other formats for this guide
- 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 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
References
- 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
