On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Ari Belenkiy wrote:
> I am likely missing the point here:
>
>> "The ERC requires that all peer-reviewed
publications from
>> ERC-funded research projects be deposited on
publication into
>> an appropriate research repository where available,
such as
>> PubMed Central, ArXiv or an institutional
repository, and
>> subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of
publication."
>
> To place the paper on ArXiv is not the same as to
provide an
> "Open Access"?
>
> Doesn't the former and latter just mean:
"availability to all"?
>
> And if a publisher objects to a 6-month period and
insists on
> 12-month one, for example? I should not sign the deal
or I am
> defended by law if I break it?
The point is that the ERC (and others) have wisely opted for
the
Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate (or what
Peter
Suber calls the Dual Deposit/Release Mandate), in which
immediate
deposit (of the final, peer-reviewed draft, immediately upon
acceptance for publication) is mandatory, but the date at
which
access to that deposit is set as Open Access (full-text and
metadata accessible webwide) rather than Closed Access
(metadata
accessible webwide, but not yet the full text) may be
delayed, if
there is a publisher embargo (but the allowable embargo
period is
capped at a maximum of 6 months by the ERC, 12 months by
NIH).
This successfully sidelines all copyright issues, which are
relegated to the access-setting, not the deposit.
(Note that among the many other reasons in favor of -- and
the
complete absence of reasons against -- stipulating that the
locus
of deposit should be the researcher's institutional
repository
(IR), and *not* one of the central-repository (CR) options
[Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally], is the fact
that
IRs have the option of Closed Access Deposit, whereas CRs do
not
[although they could easily add that option].)
"Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where?
When? Why?
How?"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/136-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
|
