Re: Harvard Faculty Adopts OA Requirement

I am indebted to Stevan for pointing me in the right
direction. 
Of course I disagree with him about whether or not it is a
good 
thing but it feels warm to be in agreement over the facts of
the 
case

The document specifically states that the university will
not pay 
for the final version. I wonder who is supposed to under
this 
scenario.  Note that this is the final version not the
accepted 
version. No-one can claim that the final version does not
incur 
publishing costs. I am personally not in favor of any
policies 
that are not going make possible the continuance of
scholarly 
peer-reviewed publishing. If this was a real mandate and was

copied widely I suggest that this would be the impact. Does

anyone disagree?

And, does this have any implications for the
conditions/terms 
under which now tenured faculty were appointed?

But of course faculty can opt out. It says they will be
given a 
waiver not that they might be given a waiver.

The whole resolution seems to me to confused. One might
suggest 
that any university might want to collect together scholarly

publications from its members for its own purpose but this
is a 
different matter from a public access mandate.

I too consider that there is room for refinement here.

Anthony Watkinson
Centre for Publishing
University College bond

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnadecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Harvard Faculty Adopts OA Requirement

> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Anthony Watkinson wrote:
>
>> I have googled to find the actual resolution that
was voted on but to no
>> avail though a lot of people seem to have
commented. How do they know?
>
> Dear Anthony,
>
> Here is a link to the link:
>
> http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/f
ullinfo.php?inst=Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20of%20Arts%
20and%20Sciences
>
>> There is mention of a waiver which is presumably an
opt-out 
>> but if there is a mandate and a waiver is that not
a 
>> recommended but not mandated arrangement.
>
> You are right. A mandate with an opt-out is not a
mandate. But 
> I hope that can still be patched up, to make immediate
deposit 
> mandatory, without opt-out (ID/OA), so only the 
> copyright-retention can be opted out of.
>
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/362-guid.html
>
>> Scholars are encouraged to deposit but they may
decide not to - or is
>> this something different?
>
> Having to opt out is bit more than not having to do it
at all. 
> But mandating ID/OA without opt-out is optimal.
>
> Stevan Harnad