OPEN DOORS AND OPEN MINDS:
What faculty authors can do to ensure open access to
their work
through their institution
http
://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/opendoors_v1.pdf
Bravo to the drafters of this SPARC/SCIENCE-COMMONS White
Paper!
It is such a pleasure (and relief!) to be able to endorse
this
paper unreservedly.
There are distinct signs in the text that the drafters have
been
attentive, and paying close heed to what has proved
empirically
to work and not work elsewhere, and why.
Here are the three crucial paragraphs: The first two, I and
II
(numbering and EMPHASIS added), give the basic context for
the
landmark Harvard Mandate. But the third (III) gives the key
modification that upgrades the Harvard model to the optimal
alternative -- a universal no-opt-out Deposit Mandate, plus
a
licensing clause with an opt-out option -- now suitable for
adoption by all universities and funders worldwide:
[I] Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted to
adopt a policy
under
which (1) faculty are required to deposit a copy of
their scholarly
journal articles in an institutional repository and
(2) automatically
to grant to the University a University License... to
make those
articles openly accessible on the Internet. EACH OF
THESE TWO
COMPONENTS IS INDEPENDENTLY IMPORTANT.
[II] The deposit requirement by itself is valuable
because it ensures
that the University's collection of Harvard-authored
scholarship
will grow significantly. Institutions (primarily in
Europe) that
have adopted similar deposit requirements have
experienced high
rates of deposit, while those with voluntary policies
have had low
participation. The deposit requirement is also
effective even in
the absence of a University License, since a large
percentage of
journal publishers' copyright agreements already
permit authors
to post their final manuscript in online
institutional archives.
...
** [III] The Harvard policy allows faculty to waive both
the deposit
requirement and the University License for a given
article upon
request. AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH IS TO ALLOW FACULTY
TO WAIVE THE
UNIVERSITY LICENSE ONLY, BUT NOT THE DEPOSIT
REQUIREMENT. Such
a policy would ensure that all faculty articles are
digitally
archived, but those that are deposited by faculty who
waive the
University License would not be made openly
accessible, unless the
faculty member allowed it at a later date. Such a
policy maximizes
archiving while also maintaining faculty flexibility
in negotiating
with publishers who do not accept open archiving or
accept it only
after a lengthy embargo period.
The difference between the above alternative and the current
Harvard policy, though a tiny difference, is the difference
between night and day for the success and power of the
mandate,
and hence its suitability to serve as a model for other
universities (and research funders) worldwide: It is that
the
deposit clause must be no-opt-out -- a true mandate. (It is
no-opt-out deposit mandates that have generated the high
levels
of deposit; it is crucial to restrict the opt-out option
only to
the license clause.)
Upgrade Harvard's Opt-Out Copyright Retention
Mandate:
Add a No-Opt-Out Deposit Mandate
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/364-guid.html
I (and many others) will now strongly support and promote
this
alternative mandate model, for universal adoption. (I hope
Harvard too will consider the tiny change that would be
required
in order to upgrade its mandate to this optimal
alternative.)
The strength and scope of this alternative mandate is, if
anything, understated by the White Paper. The no-opt-out
Deposit
Mandate plus the License Clause is far more powerful even
than
what the White Paper states, but never mind! What the White
Paper
states (and its excellent practical suggestions) should be
more
than enough to encourage the universities of the world to
adopt
it.
(One ever so tiny quibble that I feel churlish even to
mention,
concerns the timing of the deposit, and which draft to
deposit:
The optimal timing for deposit is *immediately upon
acceptance of
the refereed draft for publication*: There is no earthly
reason
for science and scholarship to wait till the time of
publication.
And the draft to deposit is the author's final, refereed,
accepted draft ["postprint"]. *Of course* that
draft is citable
[as author/title/journal -- in press]; and the citation can
be
updated as soon as the full year/volume/issue/page-span
information is available. And of course quoted passages can
be
specified by section-heading plus paragraph number: no
overwhelming need for the pagination of the publisher's
final
PDF.)
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where?
When? Why? How?
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/136-guid.html
I hope that this optimal university mandate will now also
make it
more evident why it is so important to integrate university
and
funder mandates, so that the university IR is the convergent
locus of direct deposit for both:
How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access
Mandates
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/369-guid.html
One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/375-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/arch
ives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
|
