32nd Green OA Mandate: Kudos and Caveat

The UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is now the 6th of the 7 UK Research Councils to adopt a Green Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate

That makes AHRC's the 18th funder OA mandate worldwide, in addition to 14 university and departmental mandates, 2 proposed multi-university mandates, and 4 proposed funder mandates, for a total of 38 Green OA mandates adopted or proposed so far.

Like most of the mandates adopted so far, the AHRC has some needless, easily-corrected flaws, but first, let us (with Dr. Johnson) applaud the fact that it has been adopted at all: Bravo AHRC!

Now the mandate's altogether unnecessary and ever-so-easily-corrected flaw:

In their anxiety to ensure that their policy is both legal and not needlessly worrisome for publishers, AHRC (and many of the other funder mandates, including yesterday's CIHR mandate from Canada) have allowed an embargo period before the article is made OA, if the publisher wishes.

That is fine. But it is a huge mistake to allow the time at which the article must be deposited to be dictated by the publisher's embargo.

The deposit should be required immediately upon acceptance for publication, without exception. If there is no publisher embargo, that deposit is also immediately made Open Access at that same time. Otherwise it is made Closed Access for the duration of the embargo period. (Only the bibliographic metadata are visible and accessible via the web, not the article itself.)

It may seem pointless to require an article to be deposited immediately if it cannot be made OA immediately. But the point of requiring immediate deposit either way is to close a profound loophole that could otherwise delay both deposit and OA indefinitely, turning the mandate into a mockery from which any researcher can opt out at the behest of his publisher.

The early mandators have been very progressive and helpful in having adopted OA mandates at all, but now that mandates are spreading, it is important to optimize them, and plug the needless loopholes. Otherwise the mandates will suffer the same fate as the ill-fated NIH Public Access Policy, which failed so badly that its self-archiving rate was even lower than the spontaenous baseline for random self-archiving, in the absence of any policy at all. (The proposed NIH policy upgrade to a mandate is now one of the 4 pending funder mandate proposals).

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

The Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model

OA mandators (and those proposing or contemplating OA mandates): Please consult the above links, as well as Peter Suber's critique below, and then do the minor tweaks that are the only thing needed to transform your policies into reliable, effective mandates, setting an example worthy of emulation by others.

---

Peter Suber in Open Access News wrote:

The UK Arts & Humanities Research Council announced its long-awaited OA policy today. You can find it on the AHRC access policy page and in Appendix 9 of its lengthy (111 pp.) Research Funding Guide for 2007/08:

It is the AHRC’s position that authors choose where to place their research for publication. It is for authors’ institutions to decide whether they are prepared to use funds for any page charges or other publishing fees. Such funds could be part of an institution’s indirect costs under the full economic costing regime....

The AHRC requires that funded researchers:

   -- ensure deposit of a copy of any resultant articles published in journals or conference proceedings in appropriate repository

   -- wherever possible, ensure deposit of the bibliographical metadata relating to such articles, including a link to the publisher’s website, at or around the time of publication

Full implementation of these requirements must be undertaken such that current copyright and licensing policies, for example, embargo periods and provisions limiting the use of deposited content to noncommercial purposes, are respected by authors.

The final paragraph is emphasized (in bold type) in the Funding Guide but not emphasized on the access policy page.

Comments.

-- I applaud the mandatory language. But the policy is sketchy on most other important details. It doesn’t indicate which version should be deposited or what counts as an appropriate repository. It urges immediate deposit for metadata but doesn’t do so for the text itself. It gives no timetable for depositing the text and no maximum length for the delay or embargo.

-- It gives nearly as much space to the exception as it does to the policy, and creates the same gigantic loophole as the new CIHR policy and the older ESRC policy. If publishers don’t want their authors to make any version of their articles OA, they only have to adopt a house rule to that effect and suddenly the AHRC policy does not apply to AHRC grantees who submit work to that publisher.

--The AHRC is the sixth of the seven Research Councils UK to announce its OA policy. If this kind of mandatory language qualified by a vitiating exception can be called a mandate, then it’s also the sixth to adopt a mandate. The other five are at the BBSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC, and STFC. The EPSRC is still deliberating. Of the six RCUK OA policies, three allow authors to use grant funds for publication fees at fee-based OA journals (MRC, NERC, STFC) and three do not (AHRC, BBSRC, ESRC).

Peter Suber, Open Access News

---

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum