[Open-access] SPARC Europe has classified the UK's open access policy in a category of it's own
mark at cottagelabs.com
Thu Feb 14 00:08:06 UTC 2013
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> I like your positive perspective, Mark. But the flat facts of the
> matter is, the SPARC statement is just plain wrong.
Ah, a good point.
> We won't advance
> any agenda with misstatements.
And a good idea.
> -- Mike.
> On 13 February 2013 23:53, Mark MacGillivray <mark at cottagelabs.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com>
> >> I emailed SPARC & Alma about this. Here is Alma's reply (and the
> message I
> >> sent to them). I completely disagree tbh and am at a loss with what to
> >> next. Alma seems to avoid directly addressing the clear point I
> addressed to
> >> her/SPARC:
> > Presumably you are worried that the classification of RCUK in solitary
> > make it look bad. But you have failed to influence the people making the
> > classification. So instead, positively re-enforce it.
> > Blog and tweet etc about how great it is that SPARC have acknowledged the
> > leading stance that RCUK has taken, and how proud you are that RCUK are
> > doing such great things for open access. If only other orgs across Europe
> > could follow such lead, and attempt to join RCUK in SPARCs class-leading
> > categorisation...
> > Mark
> >> ---------------
> >> On 13/02/2013 19:22, "Ross Mounce" <ross.mounce at okfn.org> wrote:
> >> Dear SPARC,
> >> It has come to my attention that you have recently published an analysis
> >> of funder Open Access policies:
> >> I am perplexed by the classification of RCUK in this scheme. Fred Friend
> >> has put it in a class of it's own under the title: "Gold (journal-based)
> >> Open Access required"
> >> The RCUK policy is summarised here:
> >> In this document it clearly says "The Research Councils will continue to
> >> support a mixed approach to Open Access..."
> >> All of the documents available on the site clearly indicate that both
> >> green and gold OA are allowed
> >> http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx if only that gold is
> >> preferred. Preferred does NOT equal 'required'.
> >> So whilst I appreciate that the RCUK policy has certain interesting
> >> features, in Friend's classification scheme it clearly belongs with the
> >> other funders in the "Either Green or Gold routes satisfy policy
> >> requirements" category.
> >> Could this change be made ASAP?
> >> I fear RCUK's lone listing may adversely affect opinion of it.
> >> it undermines the credibility of SPARC if they publish untrue statements
> >> such as this.
> >> Many thanks,
> >> Ross
> >> -------------------------
> >> On 13/02/2013 19:22, "Alma Swan" <> wrote:
> >> Dear Ross
> >> Thank you for your message. I am sorry you are perplexed. Our
> >> classification, unlike that of Science Europe, is trying to show the
> >> differences between policies and the directions in which policymakers
> >> to wish to travel.
> >> RCUK is claiming that it's 'leading the world' and Fred’s classification
> >> reflects that. RCUK can't do that and be the same as others that have
> >> before, and indeed it isn't.
> >> This classification acknowledges the ground-breaking move that RCUK has
> >> made. The policy requires publication in an RCUK-compliant journal,
> which it
> >> defines as one that provides immediate OA (on payment of an
> >> article-processing fee if it requires to be paid). If the journal does
> >> provide OA, then the Green route can be used. No other policy in the
> >> is the same as this and the classification highlights this individual
> >> stance.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Alma
> >> ------------------------------------
> >> Alma Swan, BSc, PhD, MBA
> >> Director of Advocacy Programmes, SPARC Europe: www.sparceurope.org
> >> Director, Key Perspectives Ltd: www.keyperspectives.co.uk
> >> Convenor, Enabling Open Scholarship: www.openscholarship.org
> >> Director, Directory of Open Access Journals: www.doaj.org
> >> +44 (0)1392 879702
> >> Skype: almaswan
> >> http://bit.ly/aQXNEy
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> open-access mailing list
> >> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-access