On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Thierry Chanier wrote:
> http://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/article.php3?id_article=3D15
> the new head of the CNRS recommends depositing in Hal...
*Recommending* has been demonstrated to be insufficient to generate
self-archiving above the worldwide spontaneous self-archiving baseline
of 15%: Only *requiring*) (a mandate, directive, compulsory policy)
will generate self-archiving that approaches 100% of institutional
research output.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/
Moreover, this CNRS recommendation is not new. It was already registered
in ROARMAP on 17 Mar 2005 by the former Directorate by the former Head
of Scientific and Technical Information (Laurent Romary)
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
Institution's/Department's OA Self-Archiving Policy
"HAL (Hyper Article en Ligne), is an open archive that already
covers the fields of Physics, Mathematics and Humanities within CNRS
and which is our software platform for our future institutional
archive. The CNRS intends to establish an institutional archive a
high quality and wide coverage repository of its research publication
output. It is expected that the adoption of a highly incentivized
institutional self-archiving policy for our researchers will ensure
that the majority of CNRS publications deposited in the archive will
also be made externally visible in Open Access."
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=CNRS%20%28Centre%20National%20de%20la%20recherche%20scientifique%29
From the growth data for HAL:
http://archives.eprints.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhal.ccsd.cnrs.fr%2F
the deposit rate does not seem commensurate with all of CNRS's annual
research output:
http://archives.eprints.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhal.ccsd.cnrs.fr%2F
If you consult by year of publication you will find that for 2004, 2005,
and 2006, respectively, from all of CNRS, there are, respectively, 4430,
5462, and 2110 articles.
It would be very helpful to know what percentage of CNRS's total annual
research output this represents, and how it distributes across CNRS's
many fields and research units.
http://hal.ccsd.cnrs.fr/index.php?halsid=397ff53364e12b1147b892ffe24aa9bc&action_todo=browse&b_type=browse_date
> the researcher should [first] ask the publisher for permission to deposit.
This is a big mistake. No permission is required from anyone merely to
deposit.
The CNRS policy should be a requirement to immediately deposit all published
articles (full text and metadata) immediately upon acceptance for
publication (no exceptions, no delays). The only optional component
should be: when the access to the deposited full-text is set as Open Access
(until then the deposited full-text is in Closed Access, but its
*metadata* are already accessible webwide). Setting full-text access
immediately to Open Access should be recommended, but not required (in
order to avoid further delay in adopting the policy, and in order to
rule out all exceptions or delays in depositing)..
> They suggest spending time to negotiate with the publisher
> when signing the copyright statement,
> even asking him the permission to deposit the preprint!
Nonsense. Deposit should be immediate; negotiation can come afterwards,
if the author wishes, in order to decide when to set access to OA. In
the interim, I strongly recommend that HAL implements the semi-automatic
EMAIL-EPRINT request feature of EPrints (now also implemented in DSpace):
https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/notices/publicnotices.php?notice=902
No permission is needed from anyone to immediately set access to the
unrefereed *preprint* to Open Access immediately upon deposit (which
might even be before the preprint is submitted to the journal for
refereeing!)
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#copyright1
> Hence if the publisher is against any form of deposit,
> the researcher should do nothing.
Nonsense. Deposit should be de-coupled from access-setting. Deposit
should be immediate, and with no exceptions. Access-setting is up to the
author. So is preprint depositing, which should also be encouraged but
not required. Access to preprints can be set as Open Access immediately.
> I do not that know any French publisher appears on the Sherpa
> list. They avoided responding and taking any official position.
> Informally they are against We could consider this text as an
> invitation to open the debate with them
Please, before debating: deposit!
> - there is no statement that research funded with public money
> should in any case be made open access
It would be a good idea for French research funders to follow
the example of other research funders worldwide, including
the European Commission, the UK and the US, in requiring that
the results of publicly funded research be made Open Access.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp
http://cornyn.senate.gov/doc_archive/05-02-2006_COE06461_xml.pdf
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
> - there is no requirement in French research contracts, when claiming
> funds to deposit the resulting publications in an OA repository [like HAL]
There is alas no requirement in any other country's research contracts
yet either! The EC, UK and US have so far only *proposed* to require it:
they have not yet *implemented* the proposal. So far, only the Wellcome
Trust, a private funder, plus 6 individual universities and research
institutions worldwide, have actually implemented a self-archiving
mandate. So there is still time for France to become the first...
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/node3302.html
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
> - [in any case] it is nonsense to ask the publisher for the right to deposit
> a preprint, the preprint not being part of any copyright statement
Correct. But it is also nonsense to ask the publisher for permission to
*deposit* any article: If the publisher's policy is relevant to anything
at all, it is relevant only to access-setting, not to depositing.
> - it is contrary to our current position to deposit first and then consider
> whether the deposit can be made free immediately or after a given delay.
Then please change your current position, which is arbitrary,
counterproductive, and has obvious not been thought through.
> What do you think of this position? Will it promote or hamper the
> development of OA?
Recommending self-archiving is better than not recommending
self-archiving, but it is not enough. What is needed is requiring
(a self-archiving directive or mandate). And the mandate should be an
immediate-deposit mandate. Any delay and negotiation should only pertain
to the date of Open-Access-setting, *not* to the date of deposit (which
should be on the day of acceptance of the refereed, revised, final draft
for publication)..
The failure to distinguish deposit form release, the failure to mandate
immediate deposit, and the bad advice on copyright and negotiation would
hamper rather than promote OA, but this is all very easy to correct. All that
is required is to understand how and why.
Stevan Harnad
> **************************
>A l'attention de Mesdames et
> Messieurs les directeurs d'unit�
> Sous-couvert de Mesdames et Messieurs les d�l�gu�s r�gionaux
> Objet :
> D�veloppement des archives ouvertes
> Ch�re Coll�gue, Cher Coll�gue,
> Le CNRS soutient le mouvement international en faveur des archives
> ouvertes. Il a, � cet
> �gard, exprim� une position de principe lors de la d�claration de Berlin,
> sign�e le 22 octobre 2003, en
> faveur du mod�le du libre acc�s � la connaissance. Et l'�tablissement a
> agi concr�tement en mettant en
> oeuvre la base pluridisciplinaire Hal
> h�berg�e au Centre pour la communication scientifique
> directe (CCSD), unit� propre de service (UPS) du CNRS. L'Acad�mie des
> sciences a exprim�, pour sa
> part, son fort soutien dans un avis rendu le 5 juillet 2005 et un accord
> inter-�tablissements
> (�tablissements d'enseignement sup�rieur et de recherche et organismes de
> recherche) est en cours de
> signature pour l'utilisation commune de Hal.
> Dans ce contexte, je souhaite que vous invitiez tous les chercheurs des
> unit�s propres ou
> associ�es au CNRS � d�poser, chaque fois que c'est possible, les
> manuscrits de leurs travaux sur la
> base Hal, les rendant ainsi librement consultables par la communaut�
> scientifique internationale. Outre
> une large visibilit� imm�diate des travaux de recherche, ce dispositif
> permettra, dans un cadre
> acad�mique, une pr�servation � long terme des documents sous forme
> �lectronique. Il permettra
> �galement aux laboratoires et institutions une identification facilit�e
> de leur production scientifique via
> une collection constitu�e sur la base
> Hal. Je vous incite donc � prendre des mesures pour que
> ce d�p�t soit effectu� r�guli�rement. Le CNRS veillera, pour sa part, au
> maintien de ces bases en libre
> acc�s, � la conservation � long terme du corpus de connaissances ainsi
> constitu� et � la stabilit� des
> adresses des documents mis en ligne.
> Il ne s'agit �videmment pas de renoncer � la publication des travaux de
> recherche dans des
> revues � comit� de lecture. L'�valuation scientifique par les pairs et
> l'am�lioration des textes soumis
> aux revues scientifiques, en particulier internationales, sont des
> composantes essentielles de la
> recherche. Cependant, comme l'ont d�j� montr� certaines grandes
> communaut�s scientifiques, une
> publication par les canaux classiques n'est pas incompatible avec la
> communication des r�sultats sur
> une base en acc�s libre.
> Il existe bien �videmment des cas o� il est inopportun ou impossible de
> diffuser les r�sultats
> de recherche, que ce soit dans le cadre des bases en libre acc�s ou des
> publications traditionnelles.
> C'est aux chercheurs et aux laboratoires d'appliquer le discernement
> n�cessaire.
> Il convient en particulier de veiller � ne pas rendre publics des
> r�sultats confidentiels, par
> exemple s'ils sont destin�s � �tre brevet�s, et de v�rifier que les
> droits de diffusion en archives
> ouvertes n'ont fait pas l'objet d'une cession � un �diteur (cf. le guide
> du d�p�t et du bon usage de
> Hal qui rappelle les r�gles
> � respecter en mati�re de droit de propri�t�
> Les
> chercheurs des laboratoires propres ou associ�s au CNRS sont invit�s � ce
> titre � favoriser les revues et
> �diteurs dont les contrats sont compatibles avec le d�p�t des documents
> sur Hal, mais bien
> �videmment ce sont eux les mieux plac�s pour d�cider en dernier ressort
> si cela est possible, compte
> tenu des habitudes dans chaque discipline et de la n�cessit� d'une bon ne
> diffusion.
> Dans les cas o� il s'av�re que le d�p�t du texte dans son int�gralit�
> n'est pas appropri�, il
> demeure toujours la possibilit� de d�poser dans Hal une notice
> bibliographique ne contenant que les
> r�f�rences de publication.
> Sachant pouvoir compter sur votre actif concours pour contribuer �
> d�velopper le mod�le du
> libre acc�s � la connaissance, je vous prie de bien vouloir agr�er, Ch�re
> Coll�gue, Cher Coll�gue,
> l'expression de mes salutations les meilleures,
>
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 23:11:43 BST