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

Mon Mar 31 10:28:51 UTC 2014

Totally agree with Mike in regards to monographs. The Humanities need
monographs and when they are out of print they can't easily be accessed by
researchers. They can't be sold either!!! So while publishers do not
generate any revenue from out of print books, they forbid others from
actually accessing the book. 

Juan 

-----Original Message-----
From: open-access [mailto:open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: 31 March 2014 11:11
To: Rayna
Cc: Christian Heise; open-access at lists.okfn.org; open-science
Subject: Re: [Open-access] [open-science] Just in: Policy for open access in
the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework

I've written a brief (and mostly positive) analysis on SV-POW!:
http://svpow.com/2014/03/31/hefces-new-open-access-policy-for-post-2014-outp
uts/

-- Mike.

On 31 March 2014 10:49, Rayna <rayna.st at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nature's take:
> http://www.nature.com/news/uk-open-access-movement-sways-towards-low-c
> ost-repositories-1.14953
>
>
>
> 2014-03-31 11:37 GMT+02:00 Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>:
>
>> Thanks Michelle,
>> That would explain the CC-NC - and that's what Hargreaves has gone 
>> for with content-mining. That's understandable as this is the law and 
>> requires to be compatible with whatever UK and EU already has.
>>
>> But I can't see any rationale for ND.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Michelle Brook 
>> <michelle.brook at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>
>>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>>
>>> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  OKF on Facebook  |  Blog  |  
>>> Newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "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