Open Access Archivangelism

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 Professor Bernard Rentier -- Rector of the Université de Liège, Vice-President of the FRS-FNRS and Chairman of Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) -- announced on the Global Open Access List (GOAL):

"It is my pleasure to announce that the Board of Administrators of the FRS-FNRS (Fund for Scientific Research in French-speaking Belgium) has officially decided to use exclusively Institutional Repositories as sources of bibliographic data in support of grant or fellowship submission (except for foreign applicants) starting in 2013 (strongly encouraged in 2012). (FRS-FNRS is by far the main funder for basic research in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation.) "

---

I am sure that many readers will not quite realize the significance of this development in Belgium, so I would like to spell it out:

This represents the first instance of extending one of the key features of Professor Rentier's "Liege model" institutional repository deposit mandate (ID/OA) from a research institutional mandate to a research funder mandate.

The Liege model institutional mandate is

(i) to require deposit

and, in order to ensure compliance,

(ii) to designate institutional repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for institutional performance review.

The FRS-FNRS is the research funding council for French-speaking Belgium. Its Flemish-speaking counterpart, FWO, mandated OA deposit in 2007, but, like most funder mandates, FWO did not specify where to deposit, and did not provide any system for monitoring and ensuring compliance:

FRS-FNRS has has now designated institutional repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications in support of a research funding application.

This one stipulation has six major knock-on benefits: It not only:

(1) extends the Liege institutional mandate's compliance/monitoring clause to funder mandates,

but it also

(2) helps integrate institutional and funder mandates,

(3) ensuring that deposit is made,

(4) ensuring that deposit is made in the author's institutional repository (rather than in diverse institution-external repositories),

(5) encouraging institutions that have not yet done so to adopt deposit mandates, so as to complement funder mandates for all institutional research output, funded and unfunded, and

(6) ensuring that institutional and funder mandates are convergent and mutually reinforcing rather than divergent and competitive, with deposits for both mandates being made institutionally, and with institutions hence monitoring and ensuring compliance with funder mandates.

Bravo FRS-FNRS! Let us hope other research funders world-wde will adopt (or upgrade to) the Belgian model.

How to Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates

Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally

Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?

Which Green OA Mandate Is Optimal?

Stevan Harnad

In "The Open Access Movement is disorganized; this must not continue," Peter Murray-Rust [PM-R:] wrote:

PM-R: “Stevan Harnad… argues inter alia that gratisOA (e.g. through Green, CC-restricted) rather than libreOA (e.g. through Gold, or CC-BY) should be adopted...”

Actually, I argue that Gratis Green OA rather than Libre OA should be mandated (by researchers’ institutions and funders), because: 

(1) 100% OA is reachable only if we mandate it;

(2) only Green OA self-archiving (not Gold OA publishing) can be mandated; 

(3) all researchers want to provide Gratis OA (free online access); 

(4) not all researchers want to provide Libre OA (free online access plus remix and republication rights);

(5) all disciplines need Gratis OA;

(6) not all disciplines need Libre OA;

(7) Gratis OA is much more urgent than Libre OA;

(8) 100% Gratis OA is already reachable, 100% Libre OA is not;

(9) publisher restrictions are less of an obstacle for Gratis OA; 

(10) mandating Green Gratis OA is not only the fastest, surest and cheapest way to reach 100% Gratis OA but it is also the fastest, surest and cheapest way to reach Gold OA and Libre OA thereafter.

PM-R: “If we restrict ourselves to STM publishing (where almost all of the funders’ efforts are concentrated) there is not a shred of evidence that any author wishes to restrict the re-use of their publications through licenses.”

(a) OA is not just for STM articles: it’s for peer-reviewed research in all disciplines

(b) It is not just funders who are mandating OA but also institutions, for all research, funded and funded, in all disciplines

(c) Ask, and you will find more than a shred of evidence that not all authors (not even all STM authors) want to allow their verbatim texts to be re-mixed and re-published by anyone, without restriction.

(d) What all authors want re-used and re-mixed are their ideas and findings, not their verbatim texts.

(e) STM authors do want their figures and tables to be re-used and re-published, but with Green Gratis OA, that can be done; it is only their verbatim texts that they don’t want tampered with.

PM-R: “Most scientists don’t care about Open Access. (Unfortunate, but we have to change that)”

Most still don’t know about it, and those who do are afraid to provide it, even though it has been demonstrated to be beneficial for them and their research (in terms of uptake, usage, applications, citations, impact, progress).

And that’s just why OA mandates are needed.

PM-R: “Of the ones that care, almost none care aboutdetails. If they are told it is “open Access” and fulfils the funders’ requirements then they will agree to anything. If the publisher has a page labeled “full Open Access – CC-NC – consistent with NIH funding” then they won’t think twice about what the license is.”

What they care about in such cases is not OA, but fulfilling their funders’ (and institution’s) requirements.

That’s why OA needs to be mandated.

Most funders mandate only Gratis Green OA because it has fewer publisher constraints and fewer and shorter embargoes. But the advantage of mandating that the author’s version be made OA is that it makes it easier to give permission to re-use (the author’s version of) the figures and tables.

If consensus can be successfully reached on mandating Libre OA rather than just Gratis OA, all the better. But on no account should there be a delay in adopting a Gratis OA mandate in order to hold out for Libre OA.

Gold OA (whether Gratis or Libre) cannot be mandated, either by funders or institutions, and is hence not an issue. Funders and institutions cannot dictate researchers’ choice of journal; nor can they dictate publishers’ choice of cost-recovery model.

PM-R: “Of the ones who care I have never met a case of a scientist – and I want to restrict the discussion to STM – who wishes to restrict the use of their material through licenses. No author says “You can look at my graph, but I am going to sue you if you reproduce it” (although some publishers, such as Wiley did in the Shelley Batts affair, and presumably still do).”

The discussion of OA cannot be restricted to just STM, any more than it can be restricted to just Chemistry.

Authors, mostly ignorant of OA as well as of rights and licenses, mostly haven’t given any of them much thought.

But I can only repeat, even if they have not yet thought about it, many authors, including STP authors, would not relish giving everyone the right to publish mash-ups of their texts.

Graphs and figures are a different story; authors are happy to have those re-used and re-published in re-mixes by others (with attribution), and, as noted, the fact that the Green Gratis OA version is the author’s final draft rather than the publisher’s proprietary version of record makes this much simpler. (For the graphs in their version-of-record, some publishers might conceivably think of suing for this; but authors certainly would never do it, for their Green Gratis OA versions. So that’s another point in favor of Green Gratis OA.)

PM-R: “the OA movement … Cannot agree on what “open access” means in practice”

They can agree, and they have agreed: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre

PM-R: “the OA movement… Spends (directly or indirectly) large amounts of public money (certainly hundreds of millions of dollars in author-side fees) without changing the balance of the market

The OA movement spends no public money. Perhaps you mean Gold OA journal authors?

And the objective of the OA movement is not “changing the balance of the market.” Its objective is OA – Gratis, and, where needed, Libre.

PM-R: “the OA movement… Has no clear intermediate or end-goals”

The OA movement’s end-goal is Gratis OA (free online access) and, where needed, Libre OA (free online access plus re-use, re-mix re-publish rights).

Where Libre OA is needed, Gratis OA is an intermediate goal.

PM-R: “When I find an Open Source program, I know what I am getting. When I find an Open Access paper I haven’t a clue what I am getting”.

You can be almost 100% sure that what you are getting is the peer-reviewed, final, accepted draft.

And with that, researchers whose institution cannot afford access to the publisher’s version of record would be almost 100% better off than they are now.

And that’s why the first priority is mandating Green Gratis OA self-archiving.

(The disanalogies between Open Access and Open Source are too numerous to itemize.)

PM-R: “When I publish my code as Open Source I can’t make up the rules. I must have a license and it must be approved by OSI”

But OA is about peer-reviewed research, and there it is the refereed and editor that must approve the article.

PM-R: “the OS community cares about what Open Source is, how it is defined, how it is labelled and whether the practice conforms to the requirements…. By contrast the OA community does not care about these things”.

As stated earlier, the OA (advocacy) community knows what OA (Gratis and Libre, Green and Gold) and what their respective “requirements” are.

It is not the OA advocates who don’t care enough about such things; it is, unfortunately, the researcher community: the ones who need to provide the OA content.

And what’s missing isn’t a definition of OA, but OA.

PM-R: ““Open Access” was defined in the Budapest and other declarations”.

And the definition – not etched in stone but evolving  – has been revised and updated: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre

PM-R: “Everyone (including Stevan) would agree that this is now consistent with what is (belatedly) being labelled as OA-libre. Note that Stevan was a signatory to this definition of Open Access”.

I signed and helped draft the first OA definition, but at that time I was not yet aware of nuances whose importance has since become apparent, requiring a revision of the definition.

PM-R: “My immediate concern is that unless we organize the definition, labelling and practice of Open Access we are simply giving OA-opponents or OA-doubters carte blanche to do whatever they like without being brought to account. We are throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars in a wasteful fashion. We are exposing people to legal action because the terms are undefined”.

I’m afraid I’m lost here: Who are “we”? OA advocates? What money are we throwing away? Perhaps you means authors and their funders, spending money on Gold OA that is Gratis rather than Libre? Well, I agree that’s a waste of money, but not because the OA’s Gratis but because Green OA needs to mandated before it makes sense to pay for Gold OA.

PM-R: “If you try to re-use non-libre material because it was labelled “Open Access” you could still end up in court”.

Highly unlikely (especially if you’re re-using graphics from the author’s draft rather than the publisher’s version-of-record).

But if you have access to it at all, you’re already better off than those researchers who do not: And that’s the primary problem OA was defined and designed to fix.

PM-R: “As a UK taxpayer I fund scientists to do medical research (through the MRC). The MRC has decided (rightly) that the results of scientific research should be made Open. But they are not Open according to the BOAI declaration”.

They are Gratis OA (after an embargo period). Once all research is Gratis OA (and immediately upon acceptance for publication), Libre OA’s day will come.

PM-R: “Individuals such as Stevan, Peter Suber, Alma Swan, [have] relatively little coordination and no bargaining power”

True. But we did coordinate on the updating of the definition of OA. And EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS) will attempt to guide and coordinate the OA policy-making of universities and research instititions, worldwide.

But OA advocates, individually and collectively, are not the ones with the power to provide OA: the ones with the power to provide it are researchers themselves. And the ones with the power to mandate that they provide it are their institutions and funders.

PM-R: “So my simple proposal is that we need an Open Access Institute

Let’s publish our papers in whatever is the best journal for them, but let’s concentrate on persuading institutions and funders to mandate that we make them Green OA.

I look forward to PM-R’s explanation of why he does not agree.

The following commentary on Mike Carroll's GOAL posting on Taylor & Francis's press release is intended neither as an endorsement nor as a critique of T&F's (or any publisher's) gold OA offerings. It is just an attempt to clarify an important point about OA needs from the standpoint of researchers, who are both the providers and the primary intended users of peer-reviewed research articles:

---

MC: "[The T&F] press release is misleading and should be corrected. You say that T&F is now publishing " fully Open Access journals", but unless I've misread the licensing arrangements this simply is not the case."

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "fully OA."

There is Gratis OA and there is Libre OA:

T&F are selling Gratis OA. That means (1) immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web -- to peer reviewed research journal articles.

(Note that along with free online access, the following also automatically comes with the territory:

(2) clicking,
(3) on-screen access,
(4) linking,
(5) downloading,
(6) local storage,
(7) local print-off of hard copy, and
(8) local data-mining by the user,

as well as global harvesting and search by engines like google.)

Mike Carroll is speaking about Libre OA, which means immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web (i.e., Gratis OA) plus certain further re-use, re-publication and re-mix rights.

(Note that many peer-reviewed journal article authors may not want to allow others to make and publish re-mixes of their verbatim texts. Journal article texts are not like music, videos, software or even research data, out of which creative modifications and remixes can be valuable. All scholars and scientists desire that their findings and ideas should be accessed, re-used, applied and built-upon, but not necessarily that their words should be re-mixed or even re-published -- just accessible free for all online, immediately and permanently.)

Today, the only peer-reviewed research journal articles to which researchers have access are those to which their institutions can afford subscription/licensed access. That means research is losing the uptake and impact of all those potential users who are denied access to it.

All researchers want free online access to all research they may need to consult or use, not just the research to which their institutions can afford subscription access.

All researchers want their research to be accessible to all researchers who may need to consult or use it, not just to those whose institutions can afford subscription access.

It is not at all it clear, however, that researchers want and need the right to make and publish re-mixes of other researchers' verbatim texts.

Nor is it clear that all or most researchers want to allow others to make and publish re-mixes of their verbatim texts.

Hence Gratis OA clearly fulfills an important, universal and longstanding universal need of research and researchers.

But it is not at all clear that this is true of Libre OA -- at least not for the very special case of the peer-reviewed research journal article texts that are the primary, specific target content of the OA movement.

Hence it is not at all clear that there is anything T&F need to correct.

MC: "A fully open access journal is one that publishes on the web without delay and which gives readers the full set of reuse rights conditioned only on the requirement that users provide proper attribution."

I believe that is not the definition of a fully OA journal but of a Libre OA journal.

MC: "T&F's "Open" program and "Open Select" offer pseudo open access."

Gratis OA is not pseudo open access. It is the difference between night and day for researchers who are denied access to the publisher's version of record because their institutions cannot afford access.

And night is the current state of affairs for 80% of research, and has been for the past 20 years, even though the means to provide Gratis OA (fully) have been available for at least that long.

Gratis OA can be provided in two different ways:

Gold OA journals like the T&F journals offer Gratis Gold OA, for which the author -- meaning the author's institution or funder -- must pay a publication fee. But most journals are not Gold OA journals, and hence the potential funds to pay for Gold OA are still locked up in institutional subscriptions to non-OA journals.

That means that not only can most research not be made OA by publishing it in Gold OA journals (since most journals are non-OA), but even for the Gold OA journals, the money to pay the publication fees (of those,like T&F, that charge a publication fee) is tied up in paying for non-OA subscription journals).

(This is equally true irrespective of whether the Gold OA journals offer Gratis OA or Libre OA.)

The second way to provide Gratis OA is through Green OA self-archiving (i.e., depositing the author's peer-reviewed final draft in the author's Institutional OA Repository immediately upon acceptance for publication).

Unlike Gold OA, Green OA does not require paying a publication fee. And Green OA can be provided for all articles, not just articles published in Gold OA journals.

And, most important, Green OA self-archiving can be mandated by researchers' institutions and funders, whereas publishing in Gold OA journals cannot be mandated. (Publishers cannot be compelled to convert to Gold OA; reserchers cannot be told which journal to publish in; and the money to pay for Gold OA is locked into journal subscriptions, which cannot be cancelled until and unless the contents of those subscription journals are otherwise accessible.)

Most Green OA (and Green OA mandates) are Gratis Green OA -- free online access.

But that is still the difference between night and day for researchers.

And Gratis Green OA self-archiving (but not Libre Green OA self-archiving) is already endorsed by over 60% of journals -- including the top journals in most fields.

So please let us not belittle Gratis OA as not "fully" OA (and certainly not before we have it!). Let us provide it, and mandate providing it.

And let us not keep focusing on Gold OA: The fastest, surest and cheapest way to full OA is for institutions and funders to mandate Gratis Green OA self-archiving.

(And, as a bonus, that's also the fastest, surest and cheapest way to Gold OA as well as Libre OA, thereafter.)

Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age, pp. 99-105, L'Harmattan.
ABSTRACT: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output. Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100% Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the research community's access and impact problems are already solved. If and when 100% Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no one knows whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows anarchically, article by article, not journal by journal) then the cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals. As subscription revenues shrink, institutional windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service provision alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and access-provision and archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA.

Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus 28 (1): 55-59.
ABSTRACT: Among the many important implications of Houghton et al’s (2009) timely and illuminating JISC analysis of the costs and benefits of providing free online access (“Open Access,” OA) to peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journal articles one stands out as particularly compelling: It would yield a forty-fold benefit/cost ratio if the world’s peer-reviewed research were all self-archived by its authors so as to make it OA. There are many assumptions and estimates underlying Houghton et al’s modelling and analyses, but they are for the most part very reasonable and even conservative. This makes their strongest practical implication particularly striking: The 40-fold benefit/cost ratio of providing Green OA is an order of magnitude greater than all the other potential combinations of alternatives to the status quo analyzed and compared by Houghton et al. This outcome is all the more significant in light of the fact that self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas OA publishing depends on the publishing community. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that this outcome emerged from studies that approached the problem primarily from the standpoint of the economics of publication rather than the economics of research.

Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8).
ABSTRACT:Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication) ("Green OA"). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards.

MC: "Could you please explain why T&F needs to reserve substantial reuse rights after the author or her funder has paid for the costs of publication?"

This question is valid -- but it is beside the point for the first and most important objective of the OA movement (still not reached in over a decade of trying), namely, immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web (i.e., Gratis OA).

T&F's Gratis Gold OA would provide that; but even if T&F provided Libre Gold OA, that would not be the fastest, surest or cheapest way to reach full OA -- by which I mean free online access to all 2.5 million articles published annually in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals. See the growth curves in Richard Poynder's "Open Access By Numbers."

Free online access is what research and researchers need most. Mandating Gratis Green OA self-archiving will provide just that -- and Gold OA, and as much Libre OA as researchers actually need and want -- will be not far behind.

But not if we keep over-reaching for Libre OA or Gold OA instead of providing and mandating Gratis Green OA.

MC: "If your response is that the article processing charge does not represent the full cost of publication, what charge would? Why aren't authors given the option to purchase full open access?"

Even the money to pay for Gratis Gold OA is still tied up in subscriptions, while subscriptions are still being paid for (and thereby paying for publication costs in full).

And mandating Gratis Green OA can provide free access at no extra cost, while subscriptions are still being paid for (and thereby paying for publication costs in full).

So why think about paying even more for Libre Gold OA today, when it's not at all clear that researchers want or need it -- whereas it's certain that they want and need Gratis OA (and they don't yet have it, even though it's fully within reach)?

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

The straw poll on whether or not to continue the American Scientist Open Access (AmSci) Forum (and if so, who should be the new moderator) is complete (the full results are reproduced at the end of this message).

The vote is for (1) continuing the Forum, under (2) the moderatorship of Richard Poynder.

The AmSci list has now been migrated to http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal where the BOAI list is also being hosted.

AmSci Forum members need not re-subscribe. All subscriptions have been automatically transferred to the new host site.

The name of the list has been changed to the Global Open Access List (GOAL) to reflect the fact that Open Access is no longer just an American or a Scientific matter. It has become a global movement.

The old AmSci Forum Archives (1998-2011) will stay up at the Sigma Xi site (indefinitely, I hope -- though we do have copies of the entire archive).

The new GOAL archive is at: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/

Stevan Harnad

---

Below are the complete results of Straw Poll on whether to continue the Forum, and on who should be the new moderator:

AGAINST CONTINUING AMSCI:

ARIF JINHA: I believe it would be better to have one forum, the BOAI. This forum has developed a doctrinal bias defined by the values and personality of its leadership. Though the leadership is to be commended for its credibility and vigour, it is not without its blind spots. It has not always OPEN to a diversity of perspectives. AMSCI is driven by assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing. The rush to conclusion on the right path is premature and overly authoritative in its expression, therefore it is alienating. In truth, we have only really got started with the web in the last 10 years and authority is completely flattened by the learning curve. The BOAI is much wider in its representation of Open Access alternatives, it is therefore more neutral as well as having a wider reach for the promotion of Green OA. It means less duplication and less work devoted to instant communication, giving more time to develop a rigorous and scientific approach to meta-scholarship in the digital age.

FOR CONTINUING AMSCI:

DANA ROTH: I would disagree with Arif Jinha, in that it is the 'assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing' that make AMSCI such an interesting listserv.

SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM: First, I wish to express my grateful thanks to Stevan for all that he has done so far, and in particular for moderating this Forum for so long and so well. That he will continue to devote much of his time to promoting open access and institutional repositories gives me strength to do the same. Second, if Richard Poynder agrees (or if we could persuade him) to moderate this list, there is nothing like it. The baton would have moved to safe hands. Not only he has the stamina of a long distance runner, but he is also endowed with the qualities needed for a moderator. He is knowledgeable and levelheaded. Welcome Richard!

DOMINIQUE BABINI: Discussions and ideas in this forum are also inspiring for regional OA forums and lists, e.g., the Latin America and the Caribbean Open Access List (LLAAR, in Spanish). Thank you, Stevan, for your dedication as moderator all these years, and especially for your new OA initiatives and ideas. Thank you for your Skype contribution at the OA Experts Meeting last week in UNESCO headquarters, where we missed you [in person].  I also support Richard Poynder as [new] moderator for this Forum. 

MICHAEL E. SMITH: I am in favor of continuing the list, and either of the people you mentioned as potential moderators would be good choices.

PAOLA GARGIULO: I also agree that the list should continue. I'm in favour or Richard Poynder as moderator. Hope you will continue to contribute.

PETER SUBER: If Richard is willing to moderate, I vote for him.  I second Alma's reasons why Richard would do well in this role.  I second Arthur's best wishes to you, and I second (or third) Barbara and Hélène's tribute to your work.  Finally, as the former moderator of SOAF and BOAI, I welcome you to civilian life.  It's amazing what one can do when one has more time to do it.

BERNARD RENTIER: I vote for Richard Poynder. The excellence of his critical and fair papers speaks for his designation. If he is willing to do that, I am sure he will be an outstanding moderator. And that this will let Stevan be even more tirelessly to the point in every debate!

TOM COCHRANE: The value of the Forum cannot be overstated. It has provided a unique service in assessing the events and health of OA developments. It would be a regressive step in several ways if it were to fall over. It is not too much to claim that its way of charting developments, alerting readers to new issues, identifying useful research and work on OA, and in your hands, reminding its readership of the main issues – all these have had a direct impact on practical developments. This has occurred to a degree that no single one of us – from whatever part of the world -  can comprehensively take in. But believe me, it has played a vital role. But individual workloads need to be shared, and we at QUT understand your reasoning. We are happy with the Richard Poynder suggestion.

ELOY RODRIGUES: I also support Richard Poynder for moderator. I strongly support the continuation of the AmSci Forum, and I regret your decision of stepping down as moderator (even though I understand your reasons, and I do hope that it will turn out the right decision for you, and your efforts for OA progress). Thanks for your tireless work for Open Access! All the best (from Rio de Janeiro, where I was also archivangilizing for ID/OA mandates, at the Portuguese-Brazilian OA conference).

KEITH JEFFERY: I am sorry it has come to this; you know I support your point of view and moderation does require correction of misconceptions as well as just posting. I wish the Amsci list to continue and Richard is, of course, an excellent choice as future moderator.

ANDREW A ADAMS: I am in favour of the forum continuing to operate. I feel Richard would make an excellent new moderator.

PIPPA SMART: I am in favour of the forum continuing and would be very happy for Richard Poynder to moderate.

MARC COUTURE: I definitely wish the forum to continue. I may be only the occasional contributor, but I've always been a very steady reader. As to you not being the moderator anymore, I think it's even a good thing, not because I share the opinion that a moderator should be neutral and discreet, but because it will spare you some precious time you could devote to useful purposes, OA-related or not. Note that I assume we will continue to benefit, in the forum, from the seemingly inexhaustible energy and the flawless, razor-sharp logic of our "weary" archivangelist.

BARRY MAHON: As a long time stirring stick in the OA (hard to know what word to use to describe it) world, and having crossed swords with both Stevan and Richard over the years, I have a heavy heart in accepting Stevan's decision but an uplift that Richard has volunteered. It will, I wish, go on....and I'll be there, or here, whichever is the more appropriate.

JEAN-CLAUDE GUÉDON: I also think this list should go on. And  having Richard or Thomas moderate is a good idea too.

BOB PARKS: Congratulations on stepping down. I hope it gives you more time to pursue OA!!! Either Krichel or Poynder would be a good moderator.  I fear that Krichel is over committed.

HEATHER MORRISON: Thanks very much for moderating the list all these years! I hope that the list will continue, and would support either Richard Poynder or Thomas Krichel as moderators.

SALLY MORRIS: The support for Richard as moderator of the continuing list seems clear. We really don't need to see all the messages - I thought that was the point of keeping them off the list?

THOMAS KRICHEL: I think it should continue, as it appears to be the largest and most active forum.  I volunteer to do it….  If Richard wants to do it, I'd be happy not to.

RICHARD POYNDER: Well I certainly vote for it to continue. I would even put my name down for the moderator's hat if it was felt appropriate for a journalist to run such a forum, and people believed I could do the job adequately

ALMA SWAN: I am writing to nominate Richard Poynder as the new moderator for the AmSci Forum. I think he brings the right qualities - amongst them honesty, fairness, intellectual curiousness and efficiency - and is hugely respected as an independent, critical thinker on the issues that AmSci covers. I want the Forum to continue because it is a real discussion list rather than a bulletin board…

HELENE BOSC: In memory of the remarkable work done by Stevan Harnad for Open Access through this list, during 14 years, I wish it continues... Richard Poynder would be a perfect moderator!

BARBARA KIRSOP: If Stevan feels he can better operate in support of OA not as the moderator, then it would be great indeed if Richard Poynder would adopt the mantle. I think AMSCI should continue. I am somewhat in favour of a name change to highlight OA rather than the US - a name change could be a mini-re-launch perhaps and bring in new contributors - a fitting tribute to Stevan's past efforts.

ARTHUR SALE: May I wish you the best as non-moderator. It is the right decision for you, I think. This may be a shock to you that I think that it is a plus, but I think we need to get new ideas into the OA transition, and you have done your bit and a lot more… and perhaps I can even convince you eventually that the Titanium Road is the way to go now! You will be bombarded with messages begging you to reconsider, but I do think it is the right decision. Then you can enjoy being yourself without constraint. No one person can bear the weight of the world, not even Atlas.

IRYNA KUCHMA: The AmSci Open Access Forum is an active discussion forum (SOAF and BOAI are more like the announcement lists) and my answer is (1) definitely to continue. It's sad that you've decided to step down as a moderator. I wish I could help you with moderating it, but I am travelling a lot and sometimes not able to moderate the BOAI on time…. Hope you will find the ways to continue.

EUGENE GARFIELD: When I think about Stevan Harnad another information pioneer comes to mind. The Belgian documentalist Paul Otlet. His collaborator Henri LaFontaine,  received the Nobel Peace Prize. That's the kind of recognition that Stevan deserves.

MICHAEL KURTZ: I liked that AMSCI reflected your point of view, I value that,
and expect I will always.  I hope I will always be able to discover
it, perhaps you will frequently post.

THIERRY CHANIER : First of all, I would like to deeply thank Stevan  for his  continuous work over these more than 10 years. This forum is a very important place where supporters of OA can find information, and share their actions. I would be happy if Richard Poynder becomes our moderator. As Barbara (Kirsop) put it : it may be time to change the name of our forum, forget the American qualifier in order  to reflect its international wider status.

TONY HEY: I think that Stevan must take some credit from the UK Government's decision to insist on open access to publications and data ... Well done Stevan and thanks for all your tireless proselytizing on behalf of open access!

Stuart Shieber's reply to Matt Welsh's worries about the Harvard Open Access policy is spot-on in every respect.

No one could be a more fervent well-wisher for the success of the Harvard OA policy than I am. But the crucial criterion for the success of an OA policy is how much OA it actually generates.

It is splendid that 95% of Harvard authors have not opted out of the copyright reservation clause. But what percentage have been complying with the no-opt-out deposit clause by actually depositing or providing a deposit-copy of their articles?

Stuart is certainly right that it is hard to imagine that providing the articles is "a huge pain." But is it clear to Harvard authors that they are required to do it?

Here are the relevant portions of the the FAS OA Policy:

I. Copyright Reservation Clause:

"Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles….The Dean or the Dean’s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member explaining the need."

II. Deposit Clause:

"To assist the University in distributing the articles, each Faculty member will provide an electronic copy of the final version of the article at no charge to the appropriate representative of the Provost’s Office in an appropriate format (such as PDF) specified by the Provost’s Office."

Is it clear to Harvard authors that a formal opt-out from Clause I is not an opt-out from Clause II (i.e., that deposit must be done in any case)?

The answer to this question would be implicit in the annual percentage of Harvard's refereed research output that is actually being deposited in DASH. If that percentage does not approach or match the 95% non-opt-out rate for Clause I, then perhaps the contingencies need to be made a lot clearer.

Here's are four suggestions:

1. Place the Deposit Clause first, and state explicitly that there is no opt-out or waiver from this deposit requirement, only from the copyright-reservation clause that follows. All articles must be deposited in DASH. Access to those for which the Copyright Reservation Clause has been waived will be set as Closed Access instead of Open Access. (And, to prevent the deposit requirement from being a vague, open-ended one that can be left to be complied with in 2022, state explicitly that the deposit must be done immediately upon acceptance for publication.)

This clarification is all the more important, since universities are beginning follow Harvard's example by adopting the Harvard model as their OA policy: This makes it all the more crucial to make sure that the policy model is clear, understood, and actually works.

Here are the three further suggestions, that have both already been demonstrated to make an immediate-deposit (ID/OA) requirement more attractive and better complied with:

2. Designate deposit in DASH as henceforth the sole mechanism for submitting refereed research for performance review (the "Liège Model" OA mandate.)

3. Implement the automatized "email eprint request" Button in DASH, to allow individual users, via one click, to request a single copy of a Closed Access deposit for research purposes; the author can then likewise, via one click, fulfill or decline each individual request. This will help tide over research needs for embargoed deposits.

4. Provide download and citation statistics like IRstats to demonstrate for authors the benefits of depositing their articles.

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship