From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 02:43:24 +0000
Colin, one of the defining characteristics of a Harvard-style OA
policy is that it’s voluntary — the faculty member is granted a waiver
upon request, and the waiver lasts for as long as the faculty member
wants it to. As I understand the UKSCL, it is not voluntary: faculty
may request a waiver, but the university isn’t required to grant it,
and even if it does the waiver will last no longer than two years
(after publication).
Is my understanding of the UKSL correct? If so, then the difference
between it and a Harvard-style policy is very great: a Harvard-style
policy is voluntary, while the UKSCL is not.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]
From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:04:50 +0000
Last week a friend in the UK sent me the following comment, “The major
fuss brewing here is over the proposed implementation (by
universities) of the Harvard model as the scholarly communications
licence. It seems, according to the publishers, that the end of the
world will come if this happens. I hadn't noticed the end of the
world happening in the US because of Harvard”.
I must admit I had not really been across this debate which is clearly
hotting up in UK. While this topic initially may seem remote to some
US readers of this list, the debate raises yet again fundamental
issues regarding scholarly communication in the 21st century and
whether we are still locked, while clearly in digital access mode, in
20th century historical print paradigms, metrics and pricing.
The UK license debate can be seen in the University of Glasgow
background document at
https://frontdoor.spa.gla.ac.uk/committees/inf/LC/Papers/
UK%20Scholarly%20Communications%20LicenceBriefingPaper.pdf
There is a lot of background on the web . See for instance the recent
Scholarly Kitchen blog by Karin Wulf at https://scholarlykitchen.
sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-communications-license/
. Note the contrasting commentary views after Karin's viewpoint,
especially the response by Dr Torsten Reimer, Head of Research
Services, The British Library. Peter Suber also posted his comments to
clarify the Harvard situation, which are copied below.
Rather than identifying librarians as the problem, as Wulf
occasionally does, she would have been better, taking a wider
perspective of scholarly communication issues and background.
Librarians are often caught between faculty pressure and sophisticated
publisher lobbying of governments and research bodies. Some would
argue that the OA debate in UK went awry when the Dame Janet Finch
committee in 2012, arguably influenced by multinational publishers on
the committee, recommended the gold open access approach, specifically
for articles, but Finch did not provide a framework for long-term
redistribution of university library subscriptions in order to fund
those payments. In that context, Dr Danny Kingsley at Cambridge
University Library, has identified some of the issues and problems in
double dipping article payment, record-keeping and compensation that
have flowed post Finch. The debate will undoubtedly continue globally.
Best Colin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SNIP]
Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences
The Australian National University
Room 3.31, Beryl Rawson Building #13
Acton, ACT, 2601
Australia
P: + 61 2 6125 8983<tel:+61%202%206125%208983>
E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
|
