JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  April 2008

JISC-REPOSITORIES April 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

SPARC AND SCIENCE COMMONS RELEASE GUIDE TO CREATING INSTITUTIONAL OPEN ACCESS POLICIES

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:54:49 +0100

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (238 lines)

      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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:24:07 -0400
From: Jennifer McLennan <jennifer -- arl.org>
To: SPARC Open Access Forum <SPARC-OAForum -- arl.org>
Subject: SPARC AND SCIENCE COMMONS RELEASE GUIDE TO CREATING
      INSTITUTIONAL OPEN ACCESS POLICIES

For immediate release
April 28, 2008

For more information, contact:

Jennifer McLennan, SPARC
(202) 296-2296 ext. 121
jennifer -- arl.org

Kaitlin Thaney, Science Commons
(617) 395-7413
kaitlin -- creativecommons.org


SPARC AND SCIENCE COMMONS RELEASE GUIDE TO CREATING INSTITUTIONAL OPEN
ACCESS POLICIES

New whitepaper offers ten simple steps to maximizing campus-wide
research impact

Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA - April 28, 2008 - SPARC and Science
Commons have released "Open Doors and Open Minds: What faculty authors
can do to ensure open access to their work through their institution."
The new white paper assists institutions in adopting policies that
ensure the widest practical exposure for scholarly works produced,
such as that adopted by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences in
February.

Co-authored by SPARC and Science Commons, "Open Doors and Open Minds"
is a how-to guide for faculty, administrators, and advocates to
formulate an institutional license grant that delivers open access to
campus research outputs.  Some institutions are considering such
policies as they work to comply with new requirements for public
access from national agencies including the U.S. National Institutes
of Health.

The white paper details the motivations behind the Harvard policy,
offers a concise explanation of U.S. Copyright Law and how it relates
to the scholarly publishing process, and makes specific suggestions
for faculty and advocates to pursue a campus-wide policy. The guide
offers a detailed plan of action, a series of institutional license
options, and a 10-point list of actions for realizing a policy and
adopting the right University License to meet the institution's
particular needs.

Three different licenses, which are granted to the institution by the
author, are offered for consideration:

Case 1. Broad license grant - a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
worldwide license to exercise all of the author's exclusive rights
under copyright, including the right to grant sublicenses.

Case 2. Intermediate license grant - involves license restrictions
that modify the scope of the license grant in Case 1.

Case 3. Narrow license grant - grants to the university only the right
to deposit the article in the institutional repository, and to make it
available through the repository Web site.

The paper also recommends mandatory deposit of articles in
institutional repositories. Mandatory deposit may be adopted
regardless of the licensing policy chosen.

"The Harvard policy is a recognition that the Internet creates
opportunities to radically accelerate distribution and impact for
scholarly works," said John Wilbanks, Vice President of Science at
Creative Commons. "As more universities move to increase the reach of
their faculty's work, it's important that faculty members have a clear
understanding of the key issues involved and the steps along the path
that Harvard has trail-blazed. This paper is a foundational document
for universities and faculty to use as they move into the new world of
Open Access scholarly works."

"Everyone - faculty, librarians, administrators, and other advocates -
has the power to initiate change at their institution," said Heather
Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC. "By championing an open access
policy, helping to inform your colleagues about the benefits of a
policy change, and identifying the best license and most effective
path to adoption, it can be done."

"Open Doors and Open Minds" and the 10-step action list is openly
available on the SPARC Web site at http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/guides/opendoors_v1.shtml
.

For further details on the sponsors' advocacy and author rights
programs, please visit SPARC at http://www.arl.org/sparc and Science
Commons at http://www.sciencecommons.org.

##

Science Commons

Science Commons designs strategies and tools for faster, more
efficient web-enabled scientific research. Science Commons identifies
unnecessary barriers to research, crafts policy guidelines and legal
agreements to lower those barriers, and develops technology to make
research data and materials easier to find and use. The goal of
Science Commons is to speed the translation of data into discovery and
to unlock the value of research so more people can benefit from the
work scientists are doing. Science Commons is online at http://www.sciencecommons.org
.

SPARC

SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), with
SPARC Europe and SPARC Japan, is an international alliance of more
than 800 academic and research libraries working to create a more open
system of scholarly communication. SPARC's advocacy, educational and
publisher partnership programs encourage expanded dissemination of
research. SPARC is on the Web at http://www.arl.org/sparc.

--------------------------
Jennifer McLennan
Director of Communications
SPARC
(The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)
http://www.arl.org/sparc
**************************
Save the date: The SPARC Digital Repositories Meeting 2008
November 17  18, 2008 | Baltimore, MD
**************************
(202) 296-2296 ext 121
jennifer -- arl.org

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager