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

# [drf:595] Fwd: In Defense of the American Psychological Association's Green OA Policy

- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:12:25 +0900

    drfのみなさま

    　金沢大　内島です。

    　先日はNatureの最終稿無料代行登録が話題になりましたが，アメリカ心理学会（APA）が
    有償代行登録を始めたようです。

    　NIHの義務化方針に従い，著者に代わりAPAが$2500（！）で代行登録ということです。オープ
    ンアクセスジャーナルに投稿する代金ではなく，著者最終原稿を保存（・整形）し，PubMedに投
    稿するためだけにこれだけの金額を取るというサービス（？）です。（グラントの条件にこれ
    らのセルフアーカイブの費用が含まれており，所属大学等にチャージするとのこと）

    　まあ，金で解決すれば，オープンアクセスのアドボカシーも不要ですし楽ですが，しかしこん
    なスキーマが広がるとグリーン路線のためにトータルの出版コストが増大することになりかねな
    いですね。

    　しかし，Natureの話題と同じように，こうしたことが日本でも当然の話題になるといいですね。

    　以下，ハーナッド教授の投稿です。（American Scientist Forum）

        ** Cross-Posted **
    In Defense of the American Psychological Association's Green OA
    Policy<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/433-In-Defense-of-the-American-Psychological-Associations-Green-OA-Policy.html>

    ------------------------------
    *SUMMARY: **So the American Psychological Association
    (APA)<http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/pubmed-deposit.html> is
    trying to charge $2500 per article to fulfill NIH's Green OA
    mandate<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?%3Cbr%20/%3Einst=National%20Institutes%20of%20Health%20%28NIH%29>
     by proxy-depositing<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/429-guid.html>
     in PubMed Central <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/> on the author's
    behalf? So maybe if NIH had sensibly mandated depositing in the author's
    own Institutional Repository
    (IR)<http://roar.eprints.org/?action=home&q=&country=&version=&type=institutional&order=name&submit=Filter>,
    this awkward problem wouldn't have come up? Like the majority of
    journals<http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php>
    , APA journals <http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/posting.html> are
    Green<http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers/12.html> on
    authors self-archiving in their own IRs. There's still time to fix the NIH
    mandate <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/381-guid.html> so
    good sense can prevail...*
    ------------------------------

    Although it looks
    bad<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/07/apa-will-charge-authors-for-green-oa.html>
    on
    the face of it -- the American Psychological Association
    (APA)<http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/pubmed-deposit.html>
    charging
    the author's institution and/or research grant *$2500*, not for Gold OA
    publishing, but for depositing the author's refereed final draft in PubMed
    Central (PMC) <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/> on the author's
    behalf ("proxy
    self-archiving<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/429-guid.html>"),
    in order to fulfill the NIH
    mandate<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?%3Cbr%20/%3Einst=National%20Institutes%20of%20Health%20%28NIH%29>
    --
    things are not always as they seem.

    There is no culprit in this nonsense, but if I had to pinpoint its
    provenance, it would be the foolish form in which the NIH -- despite
    relentlessly<http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04&L=AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM&F=l&P=92016>
     repeated advice and
    reasons<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/381-guid.html>
    to
    the contrary -- insisted on drafting its policy:

    To cut to the quick, there is no earthly reason NIH should insist on direct
    deposit in PMC. The mandate should be (and should all along have been) to
    deposit in the author's own Institutional Repository
    (IR)<http://roar.eprints.org/?action=home&q=&country=&version=&type=institutional&order=name&submit=Filter>.
    PMC can then harvest the metadata and link to the IR-deposited full-text
    itself from there.

    APA (and the majority of other journals) -- for reasons they would have
    found it very hard to justify flouting -- have long given their green
    lights<http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php> to
    immediate deposit (no delay, no embargo, and of course no fee) in the
    author's own IR:

    ------------------------------
    *APA Policy on Posting Articles on the
    Internet<http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/posting.html>
    *

    *Update effective June 1, 2002*

    *Authors of articles published in APA journals may post a copy of the final
    manuscript, as a word processing, PDF, or other type file, on their Web site
    or their employer's server after it is accepted for publication. The
    following conditions would prevail:*

    *・The posted article must carry an APA copyright notice and include a link
    to the APA journal home page.
    ・Further, the posted article must include the following statement: "This
    article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA
    journal. It is not the copy of record."
    ・APA does not permit archiving with any other non-APA repositories.
    ・APA does not provide electronic copies of the APA published version for
    this purpose, and authors are not permitted to scan in the APA published
    version.*

    ------------------------------

    To repeat, a publisher that is
    Green<http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html> on
    immediate OA self-archiving in the author's own IR is
    squarely<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/268-guid.html>
    on
    the side of the
    angels<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/418-guid.html>.
    (If that publisher seeks to profit from NIH's gratuitous insistence on
    institution-external deposit, by treating PMC as a 3rd-party free-loader or
    rival publisher<http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind03&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&O=D&F=l&P=35931>,
    hence legally requiring permission to re-publish, I would say that NIH drew
    that upon itself. As noted many times, that technicality does not work with
    an author's own institution.)

    And it is remediable: Simply revise the NIH mandate to require institutional
    IR deposit of the accepted final draft, immediately upon acceptance, with a
    cap on the permissible embargo length, if any. That is the sensible policy
    -- and nature will take care of the rest, with universal OA just around the
    corner.

    *
    A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access
    Policy<http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04&L=AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM&F=l&P=92016>
    (Oct
    2004)

    THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest
    Centrally<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/Harnad-driverstate2.html>
    (Jan
    2008)

    Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest
    Centrally<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/344-guid.html>
    (Jan
    2008)

    How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access
    Mandates<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html>
    (Mar
    2008)

    NIH Invites Recommendations on How to Implement and Monitor Compliance with
    Its OA Self-Archiving
    Mandate<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/381-guid.html>
    (Apr
    2008)

    Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central
    Repositories<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/414-guid.html>
    (Jun
    2008)*

    *Stevan Harnad <http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/>*
    American Scientist Open Access
    Forum<http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html>

    -----------------------------------
    内島秀樹
    金沢大学情報部情報企画課
    tel  076-264-5203
    fax  076-234-4050
    mail uchijima ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    -----------------------------------

- Prev by Date: [drf:594] Re: [drf:593] Re: [drf:589] Re: [drf:583] Re: [drf:578] （代理投稿）学位論文概要書・審査書
- Next by Date: [drf:596] ハーバード大学のOA方針
- Previous by thread: [drf:592] Wikipediaの公開
- Next by thread: [drf:596] ハーバード大学のOA方針
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread