** Cross-Posted **

Below is a very fruitful exchange with Leo Waaijers, of DARE, posted
with permission. Dr. Waaijers has synthesized the Belgian mandate
strategy of Professor Bernard Rentier, Rector of U. Liege in Belgium,
with the Netherlands' DARE strategy. (It now remains for Prof. Rentier
to persuade his fellow rectors in the Low Countries -- and then the rest
of Europe and the world -- to adopt the mandate that he and two other
Belgian universities have already adopted!) -- SH

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "Waaijers, Leo" <Waaijers -- surf.nl>
Cc: Bernard Rentier <brentier -- ulg.ac.be>,
Subject: RE: The Dutch Strategy + BENEvolent Synthesis

Dear Leo,

I think your proposed synthesis below is splendid, optimal:

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Leo Waaijers (DARE) wrote:

> In my opinion the following model could serve both Belgium and the
> Netherlands.
>
> 1. The institute mandates the posting of the metadata of
> publications in its IR either directly or indirectly e.g. via its CRIS.
>
> 2. The institute mandates the posting of the publication in its IR.
> It's at the discretion of the institute whether the deposit is
> the post-print or the pdf version.
>
> 3. The IR manager (in general the library) controls the quality of
> the metadata; this is imperative for interoperability.
>
> 4. The author determines the embargo period. It's either (a) zero =
> immediate open access, (b) a short time = delayed open access, (c) the
> Walt Disney period = about 70 years.
>
> 5. All open access publications have a proper license, i.e. one that
> allows their reuse with attribution (e.g. the Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 Licence)
>
> 6. The search interface has a document supply button which either
> forwards the request to the author or to the library, at the authors
> discretion.
>
> What do you think?

I think this should go directly from your lips to the godhead's ears --
not just the universities and research funders in Belgium and the
Netherlands, but worldwide!

(By the way, apart from the further elaboration of the postprint/PDF
options, your synthesis is virtually identical with:

     Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
     http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html

I also think some care needs to be exercised with 5, the CC license: If
the author already has a normal copyright transfer agreement with a
Green publisher -- i.e., one that formally endorses immediate OA
self-archiving -- then there is no need for a CC license. A CC license
is of course always welcome and desirable too, but, like the PDF,
it should on no account be allowed to become a sticking point for OA
deposit itself.)

Now, having formulated the optimal self-archiving mandate for the
Netherlands, are you able to get it adopted, as Bernard Rentier is
doing in Belgium? (Bernard now has three of the Belgian Universities
committed to it, and will be recommending it to the rectors of all
European Universities.)

Best wishes,

Ever the Impatient Archivangelist,

Stevan

> Leo.
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>

> Dear Stevan,
>
> To find out whether it is possible to overcome the distance between
> Liege and the Netherlands we first have to measure it.
>
> I don't think there is much distance between the two copyright approaches.
> In both cases the author needs permission from the publisher before making
> his/her article open access (OA). A big difference however is the version
> that is aimed at. In Liege it is the author's accepted final draft
> ('post-print'), in the Netherlands it is the published pdf version. (Both
> of us have exchanged the pros and cons of these two approaches more than
> once, so I won't repeat them here. Maybe we could agree on "the best
> version that can be made available".)
>
> In that case there are still some operational differences. The first one
> is the mandate. Insofar as it concerns metadata, the difference is a
> negligible one, in my opinion. In order to be visible in accounting
> documents (e.g. the annual report of the university) Dutch authors have
> to register the metadata of their publications in the institutional
> research information system (CRIS) and this system is linked to the
> institutional repository. In effect, this means an operational mandate.
> However, the Dutch metadata pertain to the officially published pdf-version
> as informal versions do not count for annual reports, RAE's etc.
>
> But the real difference concerns the publication itself. In Liege its
> posting in the IR is mandated whereas in the Netherlands this is
> optional. However, this is facilitated by a so called upload button
> which makes posting a one click operation. Further, Liege circulates all
> the metadata whereas DAREnet only harvests metadata of openly accessible
> publications. (This sometimes makes growth comparisons of repositories
> somewhat tricky.) Liege compensates for the non-open access publications with
> a document supply [semi-automatised "email eprint request"] button.
>
> So, in my opinion the following model could serve both Belgium and the
> Netherlands.
>
> 1.      The institute mandates the posting of the metadata of
> publications in its IR, either directly or indirectly e.g. via its CRIS.
>
> 2.      The institute mandates the posting of the publication in its IR.
> It's at the discretion of the institute whether the deposit is the post-print
> or pdf version.
>
> 3.      The IR manager (in general the library) controls the quality of
> the metadata; this is imperative for interoperability.
>
> 4.      The author determines the embargo period. It's either (a) zero =
> immediate open access, (b) a short time = delayed open access, (c) the
> Walt Disney period = about 70 years.
>
> 5.      All open access publications have a proper license, i.e. one
> that allows their reuse with attribution (e.g. the Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 Licence)
>
> 6.      The search interface has a document supply button which either
> forwards the request to the author or to the library, at the authors
> discretion.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Leo.
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>
> Van: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Aan: Waaijers, Leo
>
> Dear Leo,
>
> Thank you for the very frank and forthright update. It still leaves the
> Dutch Strategy as a very powerful one, but not powerful enough to
> overcome something that (alas) seems to be universal -- which is that it
> is not possible to get a high enough proportion of annual output
> self-archived without a mandate.
>
> Bernard Rentier, Rector of University of Liege, has taken the lead for
> Europe on University Green OA mandates. He not only has one for Liege,
> and, he announced at the London UUK PVCs meeting 2 days ago, also for
> Belgium's two other major universities shortly, but, with EurOpenScholar
> (and possibly with help from the UUK PVCs, but of that I am not at all
> sure) Bernard now potentially has the ear of all the European university
> rectors and VCs. Let both the DARE and DRIVER join forces with him,
> marrying a policy of IRs, Dutch incentives, metrics *and* mandates.
>
> It is only while we keep waiting and hoping that something less than
> a mandate will work, some day, that we are really losing time. Please,
> let's put all our collective weight behind mandates, and we shall have
> mandates. And the Dutch Strategy will ensure that the mandates work,
> and work quickly.
>
> Bernard's strategy is simple, and it's mostly carrot rather than stick:
> Simply link record-keeping and research assessment to IR deposit: The
> data must be deposited in the IR in order to be taken into account. It
> need not be deposited in Open Access if you are worried; you may deposit
> in Closed Access. But to be credited and assessed, you must deposit...
>
> What do you think: With Bernard's help, can the Dutch Rectors be won
> over?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stevan
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
>
>> Hi Stevan,
>
>> Currently, I cannot provide an analysis of the present growth of DAREnet
>> in terms of publication date. DAREnet is run by the Academy and,
>> although I have asked them to make such an analysis more than once, they
>> seem to have other priorities.
>>
>> However, I could count the total content of DAREnet per year because the
>> advanced search service offers this option. Then it turns out that 2005
>> is the best year so far relative to our national production. It is about
>> 25%. For the years 2006 and 2007 the current figures are roughly 20% and
>> 10% respectively. Of course, these figures will still grow over time but
>> it is unlikely that they will reach the claimed 50%.
>>
>> I will keep trying to produce better analyses (per institute, per
>> discipline) in due course.
>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Leo.