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

# [drf:3556] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR

- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:27:55 +0900

    内島様、皆様
    と思う間もなく、今度は英国の高等教育助成会議(HEFCE)が、研究評価の枠組み(REF)
    において、2015年以降(post-2014)、ハーナッドの主張に近いグリーンOA義務化案を
    出して意見を求めているようですね。
    日本の国公立大学は入試で何も考えられない時期かもしれませんが、英米の状況は
    ますます風雲急を告げています。。。

    　　　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: 	Re: UK HEFCE Call for Comments: Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014
    Date: 	Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:49:02 -0500
    From: 	Stevan Harnad <amsciforum ＠ xxxxxxxxx>
    Reply-To: 	Stevan Harnad <amsciforum ＠ xxxxxxxxx>
    To: 	JISC-REPOSITORIES ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Seb Schmoller has sent a better URL for the HEFCE REF Call for comments.

        Stevan,
        http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/__hefce/content/news/news/2013/__open_access_letter.pdf <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/news/news/2013/open_access_letter.pdf> might be easier for some people.
        Seb Schmoller

    I have read it all, very quickly, and it does look very promising, if I have understood it correctly:

    The proposal (for the only category in which I have some expertise) is:

        To mandate that in order to be eligible for post-2014 REF
        all peer-reviewed journal articles submitted
        must be deposited in the author's institutional repository
        immediately upon acceptance for publication,
        regardless of whether the article is published in a subscription journal or in a Gold OA journal
        /(no preference, and no restriction on author's journal choice),/
        and regardless of whether the publisher embargoes Open Access to the deposit
        (for an allowable embargo period that remains to be decided.)

    If I have understood this correctly, then there is only one ambiguity I think I see, which I think needs to be resolved very clearly:

    There may be inter-discipline differences regarding the allowable OA embargo length, but there should be no inter-discipline differences at all regarding the immediate-deposit requirement itself.

    (Closed Access deposit has nothing to do with publisher policy, copyright, embargoes, or discipline differences).

    The proposed HEFCE REF OA policy looks much better than the current RCUK OA policy. Let us hope that the RCUK policy will now be brought into line with the proposed HEFCE REF policy.

    It is also very reassuring to hear that the policy will be based on collaboration and consultation.

    This may help the UK regain its former worldwide leadership position in OA. The new US policy developments (following, a decade later, in the UK's pioneering footsteps) are extremely welcome and timely, but they still have many rough edges. Let's hope it will be the UK that again shows how to smooth them out and propel us all unstoppably to global OA.

    Stevan Harnad
    ──────────────────☆────────
    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:3557] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: Syun Tutiya

- 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
  - [drf:3555] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
    - From: 内島秀樹

- Prev by Date: [drf:3555] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Next by Date: [drf:3557] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Previous by thread: [drf:3555] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Next by thread: [drf:3557] Re: アメリカの新OA義務化法案FASTR
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread