[Open-access] SPARC Europe has classified the UK's open access policy in a category of it's own

Thu Feb 14 06:30:25 UTC 2013

Thanks all and particularly Ross,
This is important in that any inconsistently will be seized on by opponents
of funder mandates in general.

I wonder whether we could put out a "Panton" statement on this. We could
collate the concerns and put out half a page which those of us who feel
strongly - certainly those in this thread could support.

P.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Mark MacGillivray <mark at cottagelabs.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- 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>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> do
>> >> 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
>> will
>> > 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:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://sparceurope.org/analysis-of-funder-open-access-policies-around-the-world/
>> >>
>> >> 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:
>> >>
>> http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf
>> >> 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.
>> Furthermore
>> >> 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
>> appear
>> >> 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
>> gone
>> >> 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
>> not
>> >> provide OA, then the Green route can be used. No other policy in the
>> world
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20130214/5bf8581a/attachment.html>