How might an institution monitor immediate deposit?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Haak, Laurel <l.haak at orcid.org> wrote:

One more option:  by the end of the year, ORCID will be enabling the option
> for publishers (or via CrossRef) to write updates to ORCID records for
> accepted manuscripts that include an authenticated ORCID identifier.  The
> ORCID registry maintains information on date of post and source of post.
> This means repositories can query the ORCID registry to get information on
> newly published items.
>

I think this would be a Trojan Horse if it were relied upon as a substitute
for (rather than just a supplement to) the direct institutional
verification system I proposed below.

On no account should either the fulfillment or the timing of compliance
with funder or institutional OA mandates be entrusted to publishers,
because of the profound conflict of interest.

It is in the interests of research, researchers, their institutions, their
funders and the public whose taxes fund the research that the research
should be deposited and made OA as soon as possible.

It is in the interests of (some) publishers that the research should be
deposited and made OA as late as possible. (That is why (some) publishers
try to embargo
<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl#c2coff=1&hl=en&q=embargo+blogurl:http:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
OA.
And that is why CHORUS
<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl#c2coff=1&hl=en&q=chorus+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>,
which tries to keep publishers in control of both OA-provision and its
timing is likewise a Trojan Horse.)

Not only are publishers not obligated to provide the acceptance date to
ORCID or anyone other than the author, but by the time they posted the
acceptance date in ORCID (if they did so at all) the article would already
have been published! And the whole point of the requirement to deposit at
acceptance is *to make sure deposit is actually done at acceptance*, not
just to find out when it should have been done, long after the fact!

The solution is very clear and simple: Authors deposit their own final
drafts in their own institutional repositories, immediately upon acceptance
for publication. The acceptance letter itself is either co-deposited with
the draft, to confirm the date, or the date of acceptance is entered as
part of the draft's deposit metadata, and the acceptance letter is retained
in the author's records, for audit as compliance is monitored. The deposit
date metadatum and the acceptance date metadatum can be automatically
compared by software to ensure timely deposit.

ORCID data (where available) can be used retrospectively, if desired, to
compare with the institution's own repository metadata, as a supplement.

Stevan Harnad


> Laurel L. Haak, PhD
> Executive Director, ORCID
> l.haak at orcid.org
> Tel: +1-301-922-9062
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5109-3700
> http://orcid.org
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:03 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Professor Harnad
>>>
>>> How may institutions monitor their authors' deposits immediately on
>>> acceptance since isn't the date of acceptance normally known only to the
>>> author and the publisher?  Some journals publish each article's date of
>>> initial submission and date of acceptance, but this good practice is not as
>>> common as it should be in the journals I know.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>
>> Glad you asked! (And I've anonymized this so I could post my reply too.)
>>
>> The solution
>> <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/> is
>> extremely simple: After submission, peer-review, revision, re-refereeing
>> and re-submission, the author always receives an acceptance letter
>> indicating that the final draft has now been accepted and no more revision
>> or re-refereeing is required.
>>
>> That date-stamped letter should be deposited in the institutional
>> repository (in closed access) alongside the full-text of the final,
>> accepted draft (whether in closed or open access). The institution's
>> responsibility is to monitor and ensure that its authors deposit their
>> final drafts at or around the date of acceptance in order to comply with
>> the conditions of the funder. (Institutions are always extremely eager and
>> resourceful in making sure their researchers fulfill the conditions of
>> their funders.)
>>
>> (Probably just the requirement to have the dated acceptance letter ready
>> for verification in comparing date of acceptance with date of deposit would
>> be sufficient to get researchers to do the right thing even without having
>> to deposit the acceptance letter. The date of acceptance is also the
>> natural point in their workflow for depositing the final draft: they still
>> have it, and they know it's been accepted.)
>>
>> On no account should the publisher be relied upon to provide the data on
>> date of acceptance (just as they should not be relied upon to comply with
>> the requirement to provide open access, which is a requirement on the
>> fundee, not on the publisher, who has a conflict of interest, and an
>> interest in delaying OA as long as possible!)
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140806/036427a9/attachment.html>