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.
