[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Harvard Faculty Adopts OA Requirement
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Harvard Faculty Adopts OA Requirement
- From: "Anthony Watkinson" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:10:02 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
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.
Centre for Publishing
University College London
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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/fullinfo.php?inst=Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20of%20Arts%20and%20SciencesThere 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.
Having to opt out is bit more than not having to do it at all. But mandating ID/OA without opt-out is optimal.Scholars are encouraged to deposit but they may decide not to - or is this something different?