[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
On 2012-05-14, at 6:28 AM, leo waaijers wrote:
So, what is the meaning of a mandate
then?
An institutional mandate is an administrative requirement, like
the "publish or perish" mandate. It does not co-opt authors'
free will, and whether authors comply or don't comply, they do
it voluntarily (not involuntarily) -- and, as you know,
especially when the mandate has not been properly formulated and
implemented, many authors don't comply.
Moreover, as Alma Swan's multinational, multidisciplinary
survey shows, although most authors don't self-archive
spontaneously (partly out of fear of publishers), most of them
state that they would self-archive if their institutions
mandated it -- over 80% of them saying they would do so
"willingly."
Besides, Leo, you seem to be missing the point of my pointed
questions to Alicia:
The issue is not "free will" versus coercion.
The issue is the self-contradiction between (1) a formal
statement that a right rests with the author (i.e., does not
require seeking the agreement of the publisher) yet at the same
time (2) stipulating that the right to *exercise* that right
requires seeking agreement from the publisher!
Stevan Harnad
On 5/14/2012 11:55 AM,
Stevan Harnad wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
An author who wishes to comply with an institutional posting mandate
is posting voluntarily. An author who does not wish to comply with an
institutional posting mandate refrains from posting, likewise
voluntarily.