The phrase "final version of the article" is not
self-interpreting. It could mean anything from
non-peer-reviewed
(if the author chooses not to submit for peer review, as
some
senior economists are now doing) to peer-reviewed but not
processed (copyedited, etc.) to final published form. It
seems a
reach for Harvard to claim the right to the last since it
ignores
the publisher's investment and the author strictly speaking
does
not have the right to give away the version the publisher
has
processed, unless the publisher consents.
>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" <harnad ecs.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
|
