SPARC/Science Commons guide to creating institutional OA policies

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

       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/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html