Institutional Repositories, Research Assessment and Online Submission

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