|
|
| (44 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | From: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations
| + | <center> |
| | + | '''[[SUNScholar/Guidelines/Step 1|Back to Guidelines]]''' |
| | + | </center> |
| | | | |
| | + | ==[[BOAI/Prologue|Prologue: The Budapest Open Access Initiative after 10 years]]== |
| | ==[[BOAI/Section1|1. On policy]]== | | ==[[BOAI/Section1|1. On policy]]== |
| − | | + | ==[[BOAI/Section2|2. On licensing and reuse]]== |
| − | ==2. On licensing and reuse== | + | ==[[BOAI/Section3|3. On infrastructure and sustainability]]== |
| − | ===2.1=== | + | ==[[BOAI/Section4|4. On advocacy and coordination]]== |
| − | *We recommend CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.
| + | ==References== |
| − | *OA repositories typically depend on permissions from others, such as authors or publishers, and are rarely in a position to require open licenses. However, policy makers in a position to direct deposits into repositories should require open licenses, preferably CC-BY, when they can.
| + | *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Velterop |
| − | *OA journals are always in a position to require open licenses, yet most of them do not yet take advantage of the opportunity. We recommend CC-BY for all OA journals.
| + | *http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations |
| − | *In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that gratis access is better than priced access, libre access is better than gratis access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses. We should achieve what we can when we can. We should not delay achieving gratis in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with gratis when we can achieve libre.
| + | *http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read |
| − | | + | *http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm |
| − | ==3. On infrastructure and sustainability==
| + | *http://bit.ly/goodir |
| − | ===3.1=== | + | *http://bit.ly/garpir |
| − | *Every institution of higher education should have an OA repository, participate in a consortium with a consortial OA repository, or arrange to outsource OA repository services.
| + | __NOTOC__ |
| − | ===3.2===
| |
| − | *Every publishing scholar in every field and country, including those not affiliated with institutions of higher education, should have deposit rights in an OA repository.
| |
| − | *This will require more institutional repositories or more disciplinary repositories, or both. It may also require, at least in the short term, more universal repositories or repositories of last resort for scholars who don’t have an OA repository in their institution or field. The interface text in these universal repositories should be available in several languages.
| |
| − | ===3.3===
| |
| − | *OA repositories should acquire the means to harvest from and re-deposit to other OA repositories.
| |
| − | *Researchers who have reason to deposit into more than one repository should only have to deposit once. When possible, institutional repositories should offer to re-deposit articles in disciplinary repositories requested by authors (e.g. arXiv, PubMed Central, SSRN), and should harvest or download copies of faculty publications deposited in disciplinary repositories.
| |
| − | ===3.4===
| |
| − | *OA repositories should make download, usage, and citation data available to their authors, and make these data available to the tools computing alternative impact metrics. Journal publishers should do the same, whether or not their journals are OA.
| |
| − | *Repositories should share these data with one another in standard formats, making it possible (for example) for authors to learn the total downloads for an article on deposit in multiple repositories. No author and no repository should have interest in blocking re-deposit in an additional repository simply to preserve an accurate measure of traffic.
| |
| − | ===3.5===
| |
| − | *Universities and funding agencies should help authors pay reasonable publication fees at fee-based OA journals, and find comparable ways to support or subsidize no-fee OA journals.
| |
| − | *In both cases, they should require libre OA under open licenses, preferably CC-BY licenses or the equivalent, as a condition of their financial support.
| |
| − | *Supporting peer-reviewed OA journals in these ways should be a top priority for any money saved from the cancellation or conversion of subscription journals.
| |
| − | *Supporting peer-reviewed OA journals can be particularly important for journals with a more limited audience, such as journals focusing on national law in smaller countries or journals published in a local language, and for journals where publication fees are inappropriate, such as review journals which solicit review articles from authors.
| |
| − | ===3.6===
| |
| − | *When subscription-based or non-OA journals permit any kind of self-archiving, or deposit into OA repositories, they should describe what they permit in precise human-readable and machine-readable terms, under an open standard. These descriptions should include at least the version that may be deposited, the timing of deposits, and the licenses that could be attached to deposited versions.
| |
| − | ===3.7===
| |
| − | *OA repositories should provide tools, already available at no charge, to convert deposits made in PDF format into machine-readable formats such as XML.
| |
| − | ===3.8===
| |
| − | *Research institutions, including research funders, should support the development and maintenance of the tools, directories, and resources essential to the progress and sustainability of OA.
| |
| − | *The list of essential tools will evolve over time, but includes OA repositories and journals, free and open-source repository software, free and open-source journal management software, tools for text- and data-mining, directories of OA journals and repositories, directories of university and funder policies, providers of open licenses, digital preservation services, current awareness services, services for cross-linking and persistent URLs, and search engines.
| |
| − | *Research institutions should also support the establishment of worldwide, open standards for metadata and querying that publishers and repositories could implement to make OA research more discoverable, retrievable, and useful.
| |
| − | ===3.9===
| |
| − | *We should improve and apply the tools necessary to harvest the references or bibliographic citations from published literature. The facts about who cited whom are in the public domain, and should be OA in standard formats for use, reuse, and analysis. This will assist researchers and research institutions in knowing what literature exists, even if they don’t have access to it, and in the development of new metrics for access and impact.
| |
| − | *We urge all publishers to cooperate with this effort.
| |
| − | *We recommend the development of infrastructure where reference data may be deposited by publishers, authors, volunteers, third-party entrepreneurs, or software, and where the reference data may be hosted for OA distribution.
| |
| − | ===3.10===
| |
| − | *We should assist in the gathering, organizing, and disseminating of OA metadata in standard formats for all new and old publications, including non-OA publications.
| |
| − | ===3.11===
| |
| − | *Scholarly publishers need infrastructure for cross-linking and persistent URLs based on open standards, available at no charge, and supporting linking and attribution at arbitrary levels of granularity, such as paragraph-level, image-level, and assertion-level identification.
| |
| − | ===3.12===
| |
| − | *We encourage the further development of open standards for interoperability, and tools to implement those standards in OA journals and repositories.
| |
| − | ===3.13===
| |
| − | *We encourage experiments with different methods of post-publication review, and research into their effectiveness.
| |
| − | *OA through repositories, OA through journals, and OA through books are all compatible with every kind of traditional pre-publication peer review, and OA does not presuppose any particular form of peer review. We recommend experiments with post-publication peer review not because it will be superior, although it might, but because it would reduce delays before new work becomes OA and could reduce first-copy costs.
| |
| − | ===3.14===
| |
| − | *We encourage experiments with new forms of the scholarly research “article” and “book” in which texts are integrated in useful ways with underlying data, multimedia elements, executable code, related literature, and user commentary.
| |
| − | *We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the digital medium, and digital networks, for the benefit of research.
| |
| − | *We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the ways in which OA articles remove access barriers for machines, and not just for human readers.
| |
| − | *We encourage the use of open standards and formats to foster these uses, and research on their effectiveness.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==4. On advocacy and coordination==
| |
| − | ===4.1=== | |
| − | *We should do more to make publishers, editors, referees and researchers aware of standards of professional conduct for OA publishing, for example on licensing, editorial process, soliciting submissions, disclosing ownership, and the handling of publication fees. Editors, referees and researchers should evaluate opportunities to engage with publishers and journals on the basis of these standards of professional conduct. Where publishers are not meeting these standards we should help them improve as a first step. | |
| − | *As one means for evaluating a new or unknown OA publisher or OA journal, we recommend that researchers consult the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and its code of conduct. Members of the association are screened according to this code. Complaints about OASPA-member publishers and suggestions for improving the code of conduct should be sent to OASPA. | |
| − | *We encourage all OA publishers and OA journals to apply best practices recommended by OASPA or to seek membership in the association, which would entail a review of their practices and an opportunity to amend these where necessary.
| |
| − | ===4.2===
| |
| − | *We should develop guidelines to universities and funding agencies considering OA policies, including recommended policy terms, best practices, and answers to frequently asked questions.
| |
| − | ===4.3===
| |
| − | *We encourage development of a consolidated resource where it is easy to follow the progress of OA through the most relevant numbers and graphics. Each bit of information should be updated regularly, and its provenance or method of computation clearly indicated.
| |
| − | ===4.4===
| |
| − | *The OA community should act in concert more often. Wherever possible, OA organizations and activists should look for ways to coordinate their activities and communications in order to make better use of their resources, minimize duplication of effort, strengthen the message, and demonstrate cohesion.
| |
| − | *We should create better mechanisms for communicating and coordinating with one another.
| |
| − | *We should reach out to our academic colleagues, to the academic press, and the mainstream non-academic press. The academic and non-academic media are better informed about OA, and more interested in it, than at any time in our history. This is an opportunity for helping to educate all stakeholder groups about OA and new proposals to advance it.
| |
| − | ===4.5===
| |
| − | *The worldwide campaign for OA to research articles should work more closely with the worldwide campaigns for OA to books, theses and dissertations, research data, government data, educational resources, and source code.
| |
| − | *We should coordinate with kindred efforts less directly concerned with access to research, such as copyright reform, orphan works, digital preservation, digitizing print literature, evidence-based policy-making, the freedom of speech, and the evolution of libraries, publishing, peer review, and social media.
| |
| − | *We should look for ways to amplify our separate voices when defending common principles. | |
| − | ===4.6===
| |
| − | *We need to articulate more clearly, with more evidence, and to more stakeholder groups the following truths about OA: | |
| − | **OA benefits research and researchers, and the lack of OA impedes them.
| |
| − | **OA for publicly-funded research benefits taxpayers and increases the return on their investment in research. It has economic benefits as well as academic or scholarly benefits.
| |
| − | **OA amplifies the social value of research, and OA policies amplify the social value of funding agencies and research institutions. | |
| − | **The costs of OA can be recovered without adding more money to the current system of scholarly communication. | |
| − | **OA is consistent with copyright law everywhere in the world, and gives both authors and readers more rights than they have under conventional publishing agreements.
| |
| − | **OA is consistent with the highest standards of quality.
| |
