Open Access Archivangelism

In Open Access News. Peter Suber describes a "New Elsevier policy on NIH-funded authors" which informs Elsevier authors:

"Elsevier will submit to PubMed Central on your behalf a version of your manuscript that will include peer-review comments, for public access posting 12 months after the final publication date. This will ensure that you will have responded fully to the NIH request policy. There will be no need for you to post your manuscript directly to PubMed Central, and any such posting is prohibited (although Elsevier will not request that manuscripts authored and posted by US government employees should be taken down from PubMed Central)."

Peter criticizes this Elsevier policy, but I think it is the NIH policy, not the Elsevier policy, that needs the criticism (and correction).

Elsevier's author self-archiving policy is as constructive and progressive as anyone could wish, and perfectly sufficient for 100% OA:

"You can post your version of your article on your personal web page or the web site of your institution, provided that you include a link to the journal's home page or the article's DOI and include a complete citation for the article. This means that you can update your version (e.g. the Word or Tex form) to reflect changes made during the peer review and editing process."

It is NIH that has been persistently and needlessly foolish, despite being fully forewarned. NIH has pointlessly insisted that the deposit must be in a 3rd-party central repository, PubMed Central (PMC), instead of the author's own institutional repository (from which PMC could easily harvest the metadata, linking to the full-text of the article). As a result, NIH has gotten itself stuck with a 12-month embargo as well as an interdiction against depositing directly in PMC.

And besides insisting that (1) the deposit must be in PMC, NIH has not even put any muscle behind its "must" -- merely (2) requesting, rather than requiring, that its authors deposit -- and (3) deposit within 12 months, not immediately upon acceptance for publication.

Hence the NIH policy has virtually invited both a low compliance rate and an embargo upon itself -- and for no reason whatsoever, as all the benefits of 100% OA can be had without (1) - (3) by simply requiring immediate deposit in the author's own IR (and simply harvesting and linking from PMC). The IR software allows would-be users to request the eprint from the author semi-automatically by email during any delay period.

One can only hope that NIH will follow the lead of the UK Select Committee, RCUK and Berlin-3, and get it right the next time. (Note that although the CURES Act would be an improvement, a mandate is not enough: It must be a mandate for immediate deposit, and deposit in the author's own institutional repository.):

Institutional Self-Archiving Policy Model
National Research Funder Policy Model

Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads:

"Elsevier Science Policy on Public Web Archiving Needs Re-Thinking"
(Sep 1998; mandating first mooted 1998ff.)
"Mandated online RAE CVs linked to university eprint archives"
(Harnad, Carr, Brody & Oppenheim, Apr 2003)
"What Provosts Need to Mandate"
(Dec 2003)
"Elsevier Gives Authors Green Light for Open Access Self-Archiving"
(May 2004)
"A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy"
(Oct 2004; June 2005)
"Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!"
(Jan 2005)
"Open Access vs. NIH Back Access and Nature's Back-Sliding"
(Jan 2005)
"DASER 2 IR Meeting and NIH Public Access Policy"
(Dec 2005)
"The U.S. CURES Act would mandate OA"
(Jan 2006)

Stevan Harnad

American Scientist Open Access Forum

Below, Kate Price of U. Surrey asks whether publishers would allow authors to make electronic versions of their articles available to the UK's assessors for its 4-yearly Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (in place of the paper submissions that had been required in prior years). Alicia Wise of the Publishers Licensing Society replies that licensing arrangements are being made with HEFCE.

First, I would like to point out such a colossal absurdity in this that it takes one's breath away. Then, more constructively, I will point out what is likely to be the actual outcome, mooting the entire question.

(1) The Absurdity: If for RAE 1996 and 2001 there was no need felt to make a "licensing arrangement" in order for authors to submit paper copies of their published articles for RAE assessment, why on earth would anyone imagine that a licensing arrangement is required for the electronic versions? I am not in the habit of asking my publisher for permission to send copies of my own article for evaluation, whether for RAE, salary review, or research grant funding. (What on earth were HEFCE thinking?).

(On top of this, it is almost certain that it is HEFCE's completely arbitrary, unnecessary and dysfunctional insistence, to date, on the publisher's PDF for RAE assessment that is the source of all the fuss.)

(2) The Constructive Alternative: Research Councils UK (RCUK) is, one hopes, on the verge of mandating that the final, peer-reviewed, accepted draft ("postprint") of all articles resulting from RCUK funding must be deposited in the fundee's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication. UK Universities are also poised to follow suit, with mandatory depositing of all their research output.

The solution is hence crystal clear. Forget about licensing! The postprints should be used for RAE assessment. The PDFs are infinitely more trouble than they are worth: their marginal value over the postprint is next to nothing. HEFCE should join the chorus (of research funding councils and research institutions themselves) in mandating that all postprints be deposited in the university's IR.

Deposit mandates are wonderful things, for they cater for all tastes. Ninety-three percent of journals have already agreed that access to them can be set to Open Access (OA). (Note, again, that no permission is needed from anyone in order to deposit the postprints themselves!) The journal's endorsement of the author's making the deposit OA is welcome, but not necessary either. But if an author for some reason prefers not to make the deposited article OA, they can make it RA (restricted access) instead. The RAE assessors can then be given access to the RA deposit.

Now, before everyone starts squawking about all sorts of legalistic and pedantic niceties, sit and think about it for a few moments, and try to sort out what really has substance in all this, and what is just officious fluff: No, the difference between PDF and postscript is not a problem. No, providing access to RAE assessors for a restricted access deposit is not a problem. No, mandating deposit is not a problem. In fact all of these are natural developments, optimal for research, researchers, their institutions, their funders and their assessors -- and they are also inevitable.

So we can either keep talking ourselves through more epicycles, or we can just go ahead and do the optimal and inevitable (and obvious) at last.

Harnad, S. (2001) Research access, impact and assessment. Times Higher Education Supplement 1487: p. 16.

"UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review" (Oct, 2002)

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35 (April 2003).

"Bronze release of RAE software for OA repositories" (2006)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

Sent: 15 February 2006 17:46
To: LIS-E-JOURNALS JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Question for publishers - Research Assessment Exercise 2008

"This is really a question for any publishers scanning this list, but UK HE librarians will be interested in the answers.

The UK Research Assessment Exercise will occur again in 2008... I'm concerned about... published journal articles, published conference proceedings and published books (and individual book chapters).

"Paragraph 96 states that institutions will be expected to make published journal articles, conference proceedings and book chapters available "in electronic format" to the assessors... "the method of submission may involve HEIs depositing items onto a protected website or giving access to institutional repositories of publications"...

"Has the Higher Education Funding Council for England made any approaches to publishers regarding allowing electronic access to published materials specifically for the RAE?

"What are publishers' opinions on the copyright implications of this (given that this access would be for a limited period, to a very limited audience, and crucial for the main business of a UK university). Are publishers likely to object strongly?"

Kate Price
E-Strategy & Resources Manager
University Library

Reply (from Alicia Wise, PLS)

"My name is Alicia Wise, and I work for an organisation called the Publishers Licensing Society. Graham Taylor at the Publishers Association kindly forwarded your email to me.

"HEFCE and PLS are actively working on a licence so that RAE panels can access published works for their review purposes. The licence would cover printed and digital copies. I'd be happy to update you on progress, or you could speak with Ed Hughes who is the RAE Manager at HEFCE.

Dr Alicia Wise
Chief Executive
Publishers Licensing Society
London, WC1E 6HH