Open Access Archivangelism

Sponsored by Microsoft Research Connections

UQÀM Cognitive Sciences Summer School 2014

WEB SCIENCE AND THE MIND

JULY 7 - 18 2014 Universite du Québec à Montreal, Montreal, Canada

Registration: http://www.summer14.isc.uqam.ca/page/inscription.php?lang_id=2

Full Programme: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/AbsPrelimProg3.htm

Cognitive Science and Web Science have been converging in the study of cognition:

      (i) distributed within the brain
      (ii) distributed between multiple minds
      (iii) distributed between minds and media

SPEAKERS AND TOPICS

Katy BORNER Indiana U Humanexus: Envisioning Communication and Collaboration
Les CARR U Southampton Web Impact on Society
Simon DeDEO Indiana U Collective Memory in Wikipedia
Sergey DOROGOVTSEV U Aveiro Explosive Percolation
Alan EVANS Montreal Neurological Institute Mapping the Brain Connectome
Jean-Daniel FEKETE INRIA Visualizing Dynamic Interactions
Benjamin FUNG McGill U Applying Data Mining to Real-Life Crime Investigation
Fabien GANDON INRIA Social and Semantic Web: Adding the Missing Links
Lee GILES Pennsylvania State U Scholarly Big Data: Information Extraction and Data Mining
Peter GLOOR MIT Center for Collective Intelligence Collaborative Innovation Networks
Jennifer GOLBECK U Maryland You Can't Hide: Predicting Personal Traits in Social Media
Robert GOLDSTONE Indiana U Learning Along with Others
Stephen GRIFFIN U Pittsburgh New Models of Scholarly Communication for Digital Scholarship
Wendy HALL U Southampton It's All In the Mind
Harry HALPIN U Edinburgh Does the Web Extend the Mind - and Semantics?
Jiawei HAN U Illinois/Urbana Knowledge Mining in Heterogeneous Information Networks 
Stevan HARNAD UQAM Memetrics: Monitoring Measuring and Mapping Memes
Jim HENDLER Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute The Data Web
Tony HEY Microsoft Research Connections Open Science and the Web
Francis HEYLIGHEN Vrije U Brussel Global Brain: Web as Self-organizing Distributed Intelligence
Bryce HUEBNER Georgetown U Macrocognition: Situated versus Distributed
Charles-Antoine JULIEN Mcgill U Visual Tools for Interacting with Large Networks
Kayvan KOUSHA U Wolverhampton Web Impact Metrics for Research Assessment
Guy LAPALME U Montreal   Natural Language Processing on the Web 
Vincent LARIVIERE U Montreal Scientific Interaction Before and Since the Web
Yang-Yu LIU Northeastern U Controllability and Observability of Complex Systems
Richard MENARY U Macquarie  Enculturated Cognition
Thomas MALONE MIT Collective Intelligence: What is it?  How to measure it?  Increase it?
Adilson MOTTER Northwestern U Bursts, Cascades and Time Allocation
Cameron NEYLON PLOS Network Ready Research: The Role of Open Source and Open Thinking
Takashi NISHIKAWA Northwestern U Visual Analytics: Network Structure Beyond Communities
Filippo RADICCHI Indiana U Analogies between Interconnected and Clustered Networks
Mark ROWLANDS Miami U Extended Mentality: What It Is and Why It Matters
Robert RUPERT U Colorado What is Cognition and How Could it be Extended? 
Derek RUTHS McGill U Social Informatics
Judith SIMON ITAS Socio-Technical Epistemology
John SUTTON Macquarie U Transactive Memory and Distributed Cognitive Ecologies 
Georg THEINER Villanova U Domains and Dimensions of Group Cognition
Peter TODD Indiana U Foraging in the World Mind and Online

Cambridge University has provided a very clear step-by-step statement of how to comply with the new HEFCE/REF OA Policy, as well as the RCUK OA policy, and they are implementing it immediately:

"This policy comes into force on 1 April 2016. Yet at the University we want to  ensure this shift is managed sooner rather than later to ensure no research is omitted.” 

To derive the full benefit of the HEFCE/REF immediate-deposit policy it is important that all UK universities also implement the email copy-request Button:

For DSpace: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy
For EPrints: http://wiki.eprints.org/w/RequestEprint

This ensures that researchers worldwide can immediately request (and authors can  immediately provide, with one click each) a single copy of closed-access deposits  for research purposes even during a publisher OA embargo period.

What makes the HEFCE/REF OA policy so important and powerful is that it ensures that all final drafts are deposited immediately, rather than only after a publisher OA embargo period has elapsed.

The Request-Copy Button in turn ensures that the immediate-deposit does not lie  fallow for a year.

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Coombe, RJ Wershler, D & Zellinger, M (Eds) Dynamic Fair Dealing. U Toronto Press


Stevan Harnad

Presentation: "How to Formulate Effective Policies to Open Access to Research Worldwide" Professor Stevan Harnad of Université du Québec à Montréal on a Conference "Opening Science to Meet Future Challenges", 11 March 2014, Warsaw.

Created by Dorota Jarosławska,

Fred Friend, born April 7th 1941, died on April 23rd. He had been a dedicated, tireless and inspired advocate for OA ever since the idea was first baptized with a name (in Budapest 2001/2002, where Fred was one of the original co-drafters and co-signatories of the BOAI).

Fred's commitment to OA did not, I believe, originate only ex officio, as Director of Scholarly Communication at UCL, in the serials crisis with which he and all other library directors have had to struggle for decades. Fred also had a profound sense of justice (one that extended beyond local happenings, sub specie aeternitatis). He simply felt that OA was right. And what he did on OA's behalf he did out of character and conviction. (He was also extremely forgiving, as I can humbly attest.)

Fred was, in his own words, a Friend of Open Access. It is undeniable that OA has now lost a precious ally. But I think it is equally undeniable (and I am sure Fred knew it too) that OA is unstoppable now. That is true in no small part thanks to the efforts of this modest and faithful Friend.

Heartfelt sympathy to Fred's family; I hope that in their pain they will also find room for some pride.

Stevan Harnad

The only effective way to make inflated subscriptions unsustainable is for funders and institutions to mandate Green OA self-archiving.

Tim Gowers is quite right that “the pace of change is slow, and the alternative system that is most strongly promoted — open access articles paid for by article processing charges [“Gold OA”] — is one that mathematicians tend to find unpalatable. (And not only mathematicians: they are extremely unpopular in the humanities.)… there is no sign that they will help to bring down costs any time soon and no convincing market mechanism by which one might expect them to.”

This is all true as long as the other form of OA (“Green OA” self-archiving by authors of published articles in OA repsositories, mandated by funders and institutions) has not prevailed. Pre-Green Gold is "Fool's-Gold." Only Post-Green Gold is Fair-Gold.

The current Finch/RCUK policy, preferring Gold OA, has had its predictable perverse effects:

1. sustaining arbitrary, bloated Gold OA fees
2. wasting scarce research funds
3. double-paying publishers [subscriptions plus Gold]
4. handing subscription publishers a hybrid-gold-mine
5. enabling hybrid publishers to double-dip
6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [based on cost-recovery model, embargo or licence instead of on quality]
7. imposing re-mix licenses that many authors don't want and most users and fields don't need
8. inspiring subscription publishers to adopt and lengthen Green OA embargoes [to maxmize hybrid-gold revenues]
9. handicapping Green OA mandates worldwide [by incentivizing embargoes]
10. allowing journal-fleet publishers to confuse and exploit institutions and authors even more

But the solution is also there, as already adopted by University of Liege and FRS-FNRS (the Belgian Francophone research funding council), EC Horizon2020 and now also by HEFCE for REF2020.

a. funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit
b. of the peer-reviewed final draft
c. in the author's institutional repository
d. immediately upon acceptance for publication
e. whether journal is subscription or Gold
f. whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed
g. whether license is transfered, retained or CC-BY;
h. institutions implement repository's facilitated email eprint request Button;
i. institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for submitting publications for research performance assessment;
j. institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance

This policy restores author choice, moots publisher embargoes, makes Gold and CC-BY completely optional, provides the incentive for author compliance and the natural institutional mechanism for verifying it, consolidates funder and institutional mandates; hastens the natural death of OA embargoes, the onset of universal Green OA, and the resultant institutional subscription cancellations, journal downsizing and transition to Fair-Gold OA at an affordable, sustainable price, paid out of institutional subscription cancellation savings instead of over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's-Gold. And of course Fair-Gold OA will license all the re-use rights users need and authors want to allow.

In summary, plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Gold OA today 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 Green OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication). 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.

Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L’Harmattan. 99-106.

______ (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8).

______ (2013) Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposal. Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014

______ (2013) Finch Group reviews progress in implementing open access transition amid ongoing criticisms. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog November 18th 2013

______ (2013) “Nudging” researchers toward Gold Open Access will delay the shift to wider access of research. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog December 5th, 2013

"For U.K. journals or those which publish U.K.-authored research, this new policy means that we now have “Green” status on SHERPA ROMEO (its highest ranking)"

Taylor & Francis Green OA Self-Archiving Policy is just fine for OA needs:

3.2 Retained rights. In assigning Taylor & Francis or the journal proprietor copyright, or granting an exclusive license to publish, you retain: the right to post your Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) on your departmental or personal website at any point after publication of your article.

I.e., no OA embargo.

As for the later hedge:

Embargoes apply… if you are posting the AAM to an institutional... repository.

Ignore this completely.

The author’s institutional repository (IR)is the author’s institutional website. Period.

Authors and institutions: Please don’t prolong the needless, empty, pseudo-legal nonsense and subterfuge that has been holding back OA for decades. Ignore the phoney, groundless distinction among labelled disk-sectors in your institutional website and self-archive your final draft in your IR immediately upon acceptance (as HEFCE/REF2020 & EC/Horizon2020 require), and make it OA immediately.

Your Wizened & Weary Archivangelist

On April 1 Mike Eisen did a brilliant spoof on many of the faults of subscription journal publishing, making a host of valid financial as well as technical points.

But the focus was all on on Gold Open Access journals, not on Open Access itself.

Authors don't have to switch journals or pay extra money to provide and mandate Green OA (self-archiving of articles published in any journal).

And, technically speaking (quality, peer review), there's no evidence that the Gold OA journals are any better than the non-OA journals. (And the Beall bunch of Gold OA journals have not been getting the greatest report cards either...)

And there are many long-standing, field-specific non-OA journals with track records for high standards rather than Nature/Science glitz and hype. (I'm not sure, either, whether the undeniable public interest in research related to personal health generalizes to the vast portions of biomedical and non-biomedical research that are not related to human health problems.)

And it's not clear how authors choosing to publish in Gold OA journals while most journals are still non-OA saves money, rather than costing even more money: While most journals are still non-OA, institutions must still pay their must-have subscriptions (so their users retain access to the incoming articles in non-OA journals) on top of whatever is being paid for Gold OA for outgoing articles.

Nor is it clear that the per-article revenue of Gold OA journals, though lower than the average non-OA journal article revenue, is anywhere near as low as it could be if all articles were Green, so Institutional Repositories could do all the access-provision and archiving, and the only thing journals had to do or charge for was managing the peer review.

This is why I've taken to calling post-Green Gold OA "Fair Gold" OA, in contrast to pre-Green "Fool's Gold" OA.

(But I've resisted the temptation -- because I really think it would be unfair and misleading -- to entitle this posting "April Fool's Gold." Mike's is not a foolish picture, but it's certainly not the fullish one either...)

There are two essential components to an effective “Green” OA mandate (i.e., a mandate that generates as close to 100% compliance, as soon as possible):

(1) The mandate must uncouple the date of deposit from the date the deposit is made OA, requiring immediate deposit, with no exemptions or exceptions. How long an OA embargo it allows is a separate matter, but on no account must date of deposit be allowed to be contingent on publisher OA embargoes.

This is exactly what the New HEFCE policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework has done.

(2) Eligibility for research assessment (and funding) must be made conditional on immediate-deposit (date-stamped by the journal acceptance letter). Again, this is in order to ensure that deposits are not made months or years after publication: no retrospective deposit.

The deposit requirement for eligibility for research assessment and funding is not itself an OA requirement, it is merely a procedural requirement: For eligibility, papers must be deposited in the institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication. Late deposits are not eligible for consideration.

This engages each university (always extremely anxious to comply fully with REF, HEFCE and RCUK eligibility rules) in ensuring that deposit is timely, with the help of the date-stamped acceptance letter throughout the entire 6-year REF cycle, 2014-2020.

These two conditions are what have yielded the most effective of all the Green OA mandates to date (well over 80% compliance rate and growing) at University of Liege and FRS-FNRS (the Belgian Francophone research funding council). Other mandates have since been upgrading to this mandate model: Harvard FAS has already adopted immediate-deposit as one of its conditions. So has the European Commission's Horizon2020. And now RCUK — thanks to HEFCE/REF — will reap the benefits of the immediate-deposit condition as well (see ROARMAP)

OA embargoes are another matter, and HEFCE/REF is wisely leaving that to others (RCUK, EU Horizon2020, and university mandates) to stipulate maximal allowable embargo length and any allowable exceptions. What HEFCE/REF is providing is the crucial two components for ensuring that the mandate will succeed: (1) immediate deposit as a (2) condition for REF-eligibility.

But let me add something else that will become increasingly important, once the HEFCE/REF immediate-deposit requirement begins to propagate worldwide (as I am now confident it will: UK is at last back in the lead on OA again, instead of odd-man-out, as it has been since Finch):

The immediate-deposit clause and the contingency on eligibility for research assessment and funding also ensures that the primary locus of deposit will be the institutional repository rather than institution-external repositories. (Deposits can be exported automatically to external repositories, once deposited and once the embargo has elapsed; they can also be imported from extrenal repositories, in the case of the physicists and mathematicians who have already been faithfully depositing in Arxiv for two decades,)

But besides all that, many of the eprints and dspace institutional repositories already have — and, with the HEFCE mandate model propagating almost all of them will soon have the email-eprint-request Button:

This Button makes it possible for users who reach a closed access deposit to click once to request a copy for research purposes; the repository software emails an automatic eprint request to the author, who can click once to comply with the request; the repository software emails the requestor the eprint. (Researchers have been requesting and sending reprints by mail — and lately by email — for decades, but with immediate-deposit and the Button, this is greatly accelerated and facilitated. So even during any allowable embargo period, the Button will enhance access and usage dramatically. I also predict that immediate-deposit and the Button will greatly hasten the inevitable and well-deserved demise of publisher OA embargoes.)

Let me close by noting another important feature of the new HEFCE/REF policy: The allowable exceptions do not apply to the immediate-deposit requirement! They only apply to the allowable open-access embargo. To be eligible for REF2020, a paper must have been deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication (with a 3-month grace period).

(No worries about HEFCE's optional 2 year start-up grace period either: Institutions will almost certainly want their REF procedures safely and systematically in place as early as possible, so everything can go simply and smoothly and there is no risk of papers being ineligible.)

---

Postscript. Expect the usual complaints from the usual suspects:

(i) "This is a sell-out of OA! It's just Green Gratis OA, not Libre OA: What about the re-use rights? And if it’s embargoed, it isn’t even Green OA!"

Reply: Relax. Patience. A compromise was needed, to break the log-jam between the Finch/Wellcome Fool’s-Gold profligacy and publisher embargoes on Green OA. The HEFCE immediate-deposit compromise is what will break up that log jam, and it’s not only the fastest and surest (and cheapest) way to get to 100% Green Gratis OA, but also the fastest, surest and cheapest way to get from Green Gratis OA to Libre Fair-Gold OA.

(ii) "This is a sell-out to publishers and their embargoes."

Reply: Quite the opposite. It will immediately detoxify embargoes (thanks to the Button) and at the same time plant the seeds for their speedy extinction, by depriving publishers of the power to delay access-provision with their embargoes. It is also moots the worries of the most timorous or pedantic IP lawyer.

It thereby provides a mandate model that any funder or institution can adopt, irrespective of how it elects to deal with publisher OA embargoes.

And a mandate that can be simply and effectively implemented and monitored by institutions to ensure compliance.

---

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

Harnad, S (2006) The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model. Open Access Archivangelism 71

Rentier, B. (2009) Liege Mandate Definitely Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (or Dual Deposit/Release: IDOA/DDR) Open Access Archivangelism 502

______ (2011) Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model Open Access Archivangelism 864

Gargouri, Y, Lariviere, V, Gingras, Y, Brody, T, Carr, L and Harnad, S (2012) Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate Ineffectiveness. In, Open Access Week 2012

Harnad, S (2012) Why the UK Should Not Heed the Finch Report. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog. July 4 2012

______ (2012) Hybrid gold open access and the Chesire cat’s grin: How to repair the new open access policy of RCUK. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog September 3rd 2012

______ (2012) United Kingdom's Open Access Policy Urgently Needs a Tweak. D-Lib Magazine Volume 18, Number 9/10 September/October 2012

______ (2012) Digital Research: How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be Revised. Digital Research 2012. Tuesday, September 12, Oxford.

______ (2012) Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) Open Access Archivangelism 865/866

Gargouri, Y, Larivière, V & Harnad, S (2013) Ten-year Analysis of University of Minho Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate (in E Rodrigues, A Swan & AA Baptista, Eds. Uma Década de Acesso Aberto e na UMinho no Mundo.

Harnad, S (2013) Finch Group reviews progress in implementing open access transition amid ongoing criticisms. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog November 18th 2013

______ (2013) “Nudging” researchers toward Gold Open Access will delay the shift to wider access of research LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog December 5th, 2013

______ (2013) Follow-Up Comments for BIS Select Committee on Open Access. UK Parliament Publications and Records, Spring Issue

______ (2013) Evidence to House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on Open Access. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on Open Access, Winter Issue, 119-123.

______ (2013) Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposal. Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014

______ (2013) Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access. Written Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access, Winter Issue

______ (2013) Recommandation au ministre québécois de l'enseignement supérieur.

______ (2013) Comments on Canada’s NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy. Canadian Tri-Agency Call for Comments, Autumn Issue

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.)

(partial list, to be updated: please provide corrections and additions):

- Start with a 2/3 supermajority, generated by a smear campaign and inciting mobs to violence

- Gerrymander the electoral districts

- Adopt laws to control the media

- Buy up the media

- Recruit and buy up corrupt oligarchs

- Re-write the constitution

- Adopt new laws and amendments whenever desired

- Retire the judiciary and appoint your own

- Take over the national bank presidency

- Take over private pensions

- Nationalise businesses and properties, then re-privatize to cronies

- Conduct press and police campaigns to smear the opposition

- Use EU subsidies to fund government electoral campaign

- Limit electoral campaigning in media

- Fund private foundations to do limitless media promotion of government

- Use taxes and subsidies to lower utility costs to disguise economic decline

- Blame all economic ills on opposition

- Oblige tenement owners to advertise utility savings

- Enfranchise non-citizens in adjoining countries to vote; facilitate their voting

- Make it as difficult as possible for citizens living abroad to vote (misinformation, red tape)

- Fund the fraudulent creation of many bogus opposition parties to create confusion in the ballot box

- Have oligarchs buy up all poster campaign space for government posters

- Adopt laws restricting campaign posting in public view

- Use media control to foster a popular climate of hatred toward the opposition and xenophobia toward the outside world

- Borrow bail-out funds at extortionate rates from Russia for nuclear plant building

- Use the loan to fund “Hungary is Performing Better” campaign

- Leak innuendos and initiate criminal proceedings against the opposition weekly, dropping them once they prove groundless and have already done their damage

[Please re-post this list amended and expanded: Maybe there's hope to get it to go viral before the elections]

All this potential research money wasted — utterly wasted — on Fools Gold. Some Reflection from Wellcome Would be Welcome.

Falk Reckling: If Green OA would really work (Fools Green?), we would not need such compromises, but some of them could work: http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/Austria-open-access

There's no "Fools Green" just foolish OA policy (or non-policy). Green OA works perfectly well when it is effectively mandated (as it is by FRS in Belgium, U Liège, U Minho and others; see ROARMAP).

FWF, for example, fails to (1) mandate immediate institutional deposit, irrespective of publisher embargo on OA, and fails to (2) make research evaluation and funding contingent on immediate institutional deposit, as the effective Green OA mandates do. This effectively makes compliance with the FWF "mandate" completely contingent on publisher policy. OeAW does much the same.

It may seem more sensible to pay for Fools Gold than to think, pay attention to the empirical evidence, and design an effective policy, but in fact it's a regrettable and needless waste of time and money.

See:
Optimizing the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) Open Access Mandate: I & II

Gargouri, Y, Lariviere, V, Gingras, Y, Brody, T, Carr, L and Harnad, S (2012) Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate Ineffectiveness. In, Open Access Week 2012

Gargouri, Y, Larivière, V & Harnad, S (2013) Ten-year Analysis of University of Minho Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate (in E Rodrigues, A Swan & AA Baptista, Eds. Uma Década de Acesso Aberto e na UMinho no Mundo.

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.)

Falk Reckling: Stevan, I personally appreciate your efforts very much, always inspiring, but how to install a Green OA if most of the institutions in Austria have no repository and if a lot of researchers like to prefer to deposit the version of record ? That is the reason our OA policy offers equal options, see: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html

Falk, my suggestions:

(1) Mandate (i.e., require) institutional repository deposit of the refereed final draft immediately upon acceptance as a condition for research evaluation or FWF funding. (The FWF mandate will be backed up by a very similar EU Horizon2020 mandate.)

(2) If the fundee's institution does not yet have a repository, recommend OpenDepot as the provisional locus of deposit until the institution has a repository of its own.

Researchers will deposit, and institutions will create repositories and verify compliance, just as in every other country with an effective Green OA policy.

According to OpenDoar, Austria already has 9 institutional repositories (plus two disciplinary ones).

Falk Reckling: just have a look at that these repositories

Of course those repositories are mostly empty! That's the point! They will not fill until FWF and OeAW (and then the institutions themselves) adopt effective mandates. It is circular to say that there's no point to upgrade our Green OA mandates to make them effective because the repositories are empty! The empty repositories are the reason the mandates need to be upgraded. And the upgrade to immediate institutional deposit as a condition of evaluation and funding works. (Try it and you will see.) And I did say that institutional repositories would be created in response to effective Green OA mandates...