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

Mon Mar 31 10:15:38 UTC 2014

They also want the final version of the paper, submitted at the point of
acceptance.

Except when there are changes after acceptance, at which point that isn't
the final version and is to be considered a working paper.

Good news for researchers working on time travel.

On 31 March 2014 11:10, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> 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-outputs/
>
> -- 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-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
> >>>
> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140331/478ebc35/attachment-0003.html>