[Open-access] [open-science] Just in: Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework

Mon Mar 31 09:08:12 UTC 2014

It's disappointing, I agree. However, I think the rational, sadly, is the
response to the consultations they've carried out (Annex B and C).
Interestingly there is  an interesting paragraph, buried away in Annex B
that states:

*" We have decided to adopt a two-tier approach to deal with this. The
first tier of the policy is as follows: outputs that allow anyone to
search, read and download the text without charge will be compliant with
the access requirement in the policy. This so-called 'gratis open access'
can generate huge benefit to researchers and the wider public, and is
eminently achievable within the existing licensing environment. However, we
recognise the benefits that more permissive licences can bring, not least
that they can facilitate the automated use and re-use of content, which
will help researchers to analyse and reuse the corpus of knowledge far more
efficiently and imaginatively than before. We strongly encourage
institutions to provide access to outputs in a way that enables this
so-called 'libre open access', and intend to give credit to those that do
so in the research environment component of the next REF. Further details
of this will be developed in the coming years as part of our planning work
for the next REF"*

We, as a community, really need to be showing the value of CC-BY licensing.
We need to create use cases and stories to tell policy makers (and many
academics) about why NC/ND is bad, about why content mining is
valuable/useful.

As an aside.. the Open Access blog is available for people who want to
write these kinds of use cases (from around the world) & get them out in
the public - I'm trying to actively hunt down these stories. Tell the world
an explicit example of how content-mining has, or will, help you/your area
of research.

Best,
Michelle

On 31 March 2014 09:44, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Nor my interpretation.
> I'd like to see HEFCE's rationale. In Science the primary beneficiaries of
> ND are the publishers who then have a monopoly on selling reprints.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Christian Heise <
> christian.heise at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the link!
>>
>> Just sad that it says: "While we do not request that outputs are made
>> available under any particular licence, we advise that outputs licensed
>> under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivative (CC
>> BY-NC-ND) licence would meet this requirement."
>>
>> That's not my "Open".
>>
>> Yours,
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Am 31.03.2014 um 09:20 schrieb Rayna <rayna.st at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Just a quick note: the Higher Education Funding Council for England
>> (HEFCE) has issued a report with policy guidelines and recommendations
>> regarding Open Acces. The text is available here:
>> https://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/name,86771,en.html(Haven't read the whole yet)
>>
>> There is an annexe dedicated to text-mining, which will be of particular
>> interest to some of you here ;)
>>
>> Best,
>> Rayna
>>
>> --
>> "Change l'ordre du monde plutôt que tes désirs."
>>
>> http://me.hatewasabi.info/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: https://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
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>

-- 

*Michelle Brook*

*Science and Open Access*

* | @MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook>*

*The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>Empowering through Open
Knowledgehttp://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn
<http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
 Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140331/3cfe4776/attachment-0002.html>