[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# [drf:3555] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR

- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:44:59 +0900

栗山先生　みなさま
内島です。これは立法とは別に行政が、各官庁にdirective（行政命令）を下した
ということになるんでしょうか。よく調べてないので生半可な理解ですが。
しかし、ハーナッドの投稿から理解するに、ほとんどハーナッドの主張をそのま
ま踏襲したような内容のようです。SPARCやOAの推進グループ（Suberも含む）
のロビー活動の成果が、現れたと見るべきなんでしょうか。イギリスに比しても
アメリカの義務化の影響は計り知れないものがあります。
私個人としては、我が国の学位論文の電子化公開（原則OA化）と合わせて大変
喜ばしい動きと感じました。
2013/2/25 Masamitsu Kuriyama <mtkuri ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 皆様
> アメリカではホワイトハウスが連邦政府の諸機関にOAポリシーを策定する
> よう指令を出したとのことですね。
> 下記メールでSuberは、この指令でFASTRが不要になるというわけではなく、
> 両者は相補いあう二つのアプローチであるといったことを言っています。
> イギリスがゴールド優先路線（もめてますが）なのに対し、こちらはNIHに
> 準じたグリーン路線ということになるようです。
> この指令は"We the People"という請願に応じたものということで、請願に
> 署名した人に対して、Holdren科学技術担当大統領補佐官からのメッセージ
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research
> が送られています。
> 実はこれ、私も署名しました（と言ってもメールアドレスを登録するだけ）
> ので、同じ文面のメールが送られてきました。米国の納税者ではないので、
> ちょっと複雑な気分ですが。。。
> 栗山　正光
> 常磐大学人間科学部現代社会学科
> 〒310-8585 水戸市見和1-430-1
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [GOAL] Second shoe drops: new White House Directive mandates OA
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:55:27 -0500
> From: Peter Suber <peter.suber ＠ xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal ＠ xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: SOAF post <sparc-oaforum ＠ xxxxxxx>, BOAI Forum post <boai-forum ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, GOAL post <goal ＠ xxxxxxxxxxx>
> I just posted this news to my blog.
> https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/8hzviMJeVHJ
> The Obama White House today directed federal agencies to develop open-access policies within the next six months. The directive comes from John Holdren <http://goo.gl/T02gj>, President Obama's chief Science Advisor.
> White House announcement
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/22/expanding-public-access-results-federally-funded-research
> Directive itself
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
> This is big. It's big in its own right, and even bigger when put together with FASTR <http://bit.ly/hoap-fastr>, the bipartisan OA bill introduced into both houses of Congress just eight days ago. We now have OA mandates coming from both the executive and legislative branches of government.
> The two approaches complement one another. FASTR does not make the White House directive unnecessary. FASTR may never be adopted. And if it is adopted, it will be after some time for study, education, lobbying, amendment, negotiation, and debate. By contrast, the White House directive takes effect today. The wheels are already turning. Compared to this executive action, FASTR is slower. (Thanks to Becky Cremona for this good line.)
> Similarly, the White House directive does not make FASTR unnecessary. On the contrary, we need legislation to codify federal OA policies. The next president could rescind today's White House directive, but could not rescind legislation. (One lesson: Don't let up in efforts to persuade Congress to pass FASTR.)
> The White House directive and FASTR pull in the same general direction, but they are not identical. Here are the key points of similarity and difference:
> * Both ask a wide range of federal funding agencies to require OA for the results of the research they fund. But the new directive applies to more agencies. FASTR covers all the agencies spending at least $100 million/year funding extramural research. The directive covers all the agencies spending at least $100 million/year funding extramural research *or development***. FASTR applies to about 11 agencies and the directive to about 19. Among the agencies omitted by FASTR but covered by the directive are USAid and the Smithsonian Institution.
> * Both put a limit on permissible embargoes, but the directive allows longer embargoes. FASTR caps embargos at six months, and the directive caps them at 12 months. Under the directive, agencies may ask White House permission to allow even longer embargoes, but they must submit data to support their requests.
> * Both ask agencies to develop their own policies within certain guidelines. FASTER gives them a year to do so (starting when FASTR is adopted) and the directive gives them half a year to do so (starting today).
> If FASTR is eventually adopted, then all the FASTR-covered agencies will already have OA policies under today's directive. Some agencies may have to revise their policies to comply with FASTR guidelines, for example, reducing permissible embargoes to a maximum of six months or tweaking their libre or open-licensing requirements.
> * FASTR is silent on data, but the White House directive requires OA for articles (Section 3) and OA for data (Section 4).
> * Both FASTR and the directive are solid green mandates, requiring deposit in an OA repository (green OA) and remaining silent about publishing in OA journals (gold OA). In that sense, both initiatives build on the successful green OA mandate at the NIH, and reject the gold-favoring approach adopted by the Research Councils UK.
> * Both FASTR and the directive require agency policies to permit libre OA or to license repository deposits for reuse. They use different language to describe the desired type of freedom, and do not specify individual licenses.
> .....
> The Obama White House has twice collected public comments on federal OA policy. One public consultation ended in January 2010 and the other ended in January 2012. The new directive builds on those comments, which overwhelmingly supported OA. Here are the two sets of comments received.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/08/public-access-policy-update
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/30/your-comments-access-federally-funded-scientific-research-results
> The White House was also pressured by a May 2012 "We the people" petition that only needed 25k signatures in the first 30 days to elicit an official response. It received that many in 14 days, and today has 65,700+ signatures. While we reached the response threshold eight months ago, I think it's fair to say that today's response is what we were waiting for.
> http://wh.gov/6TH
> Today's directive is accompanied by a separate, direct response to the petition.
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research
> This is another in a series of blog posts on FASTR and other federal actions to support OA to federally-funded research. I'll pull the series of posts together for an article in the March issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
> Peter
> Peter Suber
> Director, Harvard Open Access Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Senior Researcher, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
> bit.ly/suber-gplus <http://bit.ly/suber-gplus>
> Open Access, MIT Press, 2012 <bit.ly/oa-book <http://bit.ly/oa-book>>
> (2013/02/22 18:00), Masamitsu Kuriyama wrote:
> > 内島様
> >>　 natureのブログで、「the fourth time lucky」のような表現がありましたが、これは
> >> 日本語でいう「三度目の正直」のような意味でしょうか？
> >
> > はい、これまで３回提出されて成立せず、４度目の正直で成立するか？といった意味の
> > ようですね。
> > ところで、まだきちんと読んでいないのですが、英国の貴族院がRCUKのOAポリシーを批判
> > するレポートを出したとのことですね。
> > 次から次へとニュースが入ってきて、ついていくのが大変です。
> >
> >　　　 栗山　正光
> >　　　 常磐大学人間科学部現代社会学科
> >　　　 〒310-8585 水戸市見和1-430-1
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [GOAL] UK House of Lords Science & Technology Committee: Lack of clarity over open access is "unacceptable"
> > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:05:35 +0100
> > From: Richard Poynder <richard.poynder ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reply-To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal ＠ xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <goal ＠ xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >
> > The House of Lords Science & Technology Committee has today published its report on implementation of the UK government’s Open Access policy.
> >
> > Commenting, Lord Krebs, Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said:
> >
> > “RCUK did not consult or communicate effectively with key stakeholders in the publishing and academic communities when implementing its open access policy. While we are delighted that our inquiry has shown that RCUK are proposing to phase in their open access policy during the initial five-year implementation phase, this should have been made clear much earlier. That is why we call upon the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to review how RCUK communicated this important change.
> >
> > “There are still many unknowns concerning the impact of the open access policy, which is why RCUK must commit to a wide rangeing review of its policy in 2014, 2016 and before it expects full compliance in 2018. We heard significant concern about the policy’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, and are pleased that RCUK are both aware of these concerns and prepared to act on them.
> >
> > “Open access is an inexorable trend. The Government must ensure that in further developing our capabilities to share research they do not inadvertently damage the ‘complex ecosystem’ of research communication in the UK.”
> >
> > The report is available here: http://ow.ly/hWw0f
> >
> > RCUK’s response is here: http://ow.ly/hWwaE
> >
> > Times Higher news story here: http://ow.ly/hWxbT
> >
> > A background piece here: http://j.mp/11XPsoX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ──────────────────☆────────
> > 月刊DRF http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/gekkandrf/
> >　 2013年2月臨時増刊号(37号臨時増刊)を発行しました！
> >
> > DRF（Digital Repository Federation）
> > http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/drf/
> > ─────★─────────────────────
> >
> ──────────────────☆────────
> 月刊DRF http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/gekkandrf/
> 2013年2月臨時増刊号(37号臨時増刊)を発行しました！
> DRF（Digital Repository Federation）
> http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/drf/
> ─────★─────────────────────

    ──────────────────☆────────
    月刊DRF http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/gekkandrf/
    　2013年2月臨時増刊号(37号臨時増刊)を発行しました！

    DRF（Digital Repository Federation）
    http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/drf/
    ─────★─────────────────────

- Follow-Ups:
  - [drf:3556] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: Masamitsu Kuriyama

- References:
  - [drf:3550] アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: 内島秀樹
  - [drf:3551] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: Masamitsu Kuriyama
  - [drf:3552] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: 内島秀樹
  - [drf:3553] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: Masamitsu Kuriyama
  - [drf:3554] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: Masamitsu Kuriyama

- Prev by Date: [drf:3554] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Next by Date: [drf:3556] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Previous by thread: [drf:3554] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Next by thread: [drf:3556] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread