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

Mon Mar 31 09:49:33 UTC 2014

Nature's take:
http://www.nature.com/news/uk-open-access-movement-sways-towards-low-cost-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 <https://twitter.com/MLBrook> *
>>
>>
>>
>> * The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> Empowering through
>> Open Knowledge http://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> *
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140331/fad49c97/attachment-0003.html>