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

Wed Apr 2 11:50:02 UTC 2014

How about copying from the IT OpenSource (i.e.: Linux distros) business
model?

2014-03-31 12:15 GMT+02:00 Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Dr Ivan Ferrero - Psicologo Tecniche Mente-Corpo
333-4339624
ivan.ferrero1975 at gmail.com
http://ivanferrero.it

via Zurigo 24/4
20147 Milano
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140402/77817e10/attachment.html>