Talk:Open access mandate
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyphenation of title
editI'm not sure why this page got moved to a hyphenated version of the title, because that is not the usual form. I spend a great deal of time reading about open access and I pretty much never see it hyphenated (or capitalised for that matter). The term 'open access' is now widely accepted. So, I'm going to move the page back to 'Open access mandate'. Lawsonstu (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I support this move as non-controversial. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Open
editThis article has been made a Collaboration of the week at WikiProject Open. - Lawsonstu (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Gold mandates
editHarnad, you inserted language in the lede that some open access mandates can be fulfilled with gold OA. It was my understanding that this could never happen except in cases in which the repository designated by the mandate were also a gold OA journal, and right now, this is never so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. There are indeed OA mandates that require articles to be made OA either way -- through Green OA self-archiving in a repository or through Gold OA publishing in an open access journal. (Of course it is much better, and provides a much stronger and more effective mandate, to require that articles be self-archived regardless of what journal they are published in.)--Stevan Harnad 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that all mandates designate a repository into which works under the mandate are to be placed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, some mandates -- usually funder mandates -- don't designate a specific repository. --Stevan Harnad 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that access through a repository is not now (not yet) gold OA, and that no repository is currently considered a primary channel of publication? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Green OA self-archiving of an article published in a journal is not Gold {Open Access Publishing|OA publishing] but it is certainly OA. The "channel of publication" is always the journal. The Green OA repository is merely the channel of access. You always cite the journal article, but if you don't have subscription access to the publisher's proprietary version of record, you access, read and use the Green OA version. --Stevan Harnad 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please share an example of a mandate for gold OA? In the lede you cited some papers for this but I do not see this in those sources. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- An infamous example is the UK's Finch/RCUK OA Mandate: http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/ -- Not only does RCUK allow OA to be provided via either Green or Gold, but it prefers gold. However, a complementary HEFCE mandate http://roarmap.eprints.org/834/ has been proposed, and if adopted, it will remedy this by requiring immediate institutional repository deposit (Green OA) regardless of where the article is published. --Stevan Harnad 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think mandates vary a lot in their details, and although repository mandates are more common there are exceptions. One example of a research funder mandate that has a preference for gold OA is that of RCUK (Research Councils UK), who currently state that they prefer the work that they fund to be published in a gold open access journal, but will also accept deposit in a repository. So I think Harnad's wording in the lead is fair. - Lawsonstu (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)