 |
 |
Re: Open Access, Almost-OA, OA Policies, and Institutional Repositories *Anna Clements said...* Two points : 1. I agree with Stevan - CRIS complement IRs and are not competitors. 2. You mention assessment and ERA in particular. I have no experience of this assessment model but I can say that since the introduction of the post-2014 REF OA policy by HEFCE, the amount of full-text we have in our CRIS-IR and the engagement we now have witb researchers has sky-rocketed. I auspect this is repeated throughout the UK. So assessment ... yes is a stick but it has also proved to be a game changer in the UK... and we should give enormous credit to HEFCE for introducing the policy and not bowing to pressure from some to retreat from deposit on acceptance. December 02, 2015 8:40 p.m. <http://poynder.blogspot.com/2015/12/open-access-almost-oa-oa-policies-and.html?showComment=1449088834975#c7485544496270821858> *Marc Couture said...* Having worked very hard in the last year to convince researchers in my university to deposit their papers, I can attest that the availability of the Button is of utmost importance to defuse one of the more commonly objections stated by researchers who don’t use the repository: fear of copyright infringement. I seem to never cease to repeat: "deposit in all cases and, in case of doubt, choose dark access". When they do so, depositors are invited to ask the copyright office of the university (by clicking a single link) to verify for them if open access is allowed, perhaps after an embargo, or by using a different version of the paper or asking the editor a permission, usually allowed on request. The important thing here is: that makes these researchers start depositing, in dark an open access as well. Now to lawyers thinking “it is unlawful”. One has to realize that all a lawyer can say in copyright matters, except for a small number of cases where a higher court decision undoubtedly applies, is that something is “probably” (or not) covered by the fair dealing (or fair use) exception. Although there are excellent reasons, based upon previous rulings, to believe that its use is legal, no one really knows how a judge, or a Supreme Court, would rule in a case involving the Button. And perhaps we will never know. The actual decision to “take the risk” is up to the manager of the repository, or whoever takes these decisions. As someone said (unfortunately, I didn’t find the actual text, so I can’t attribute it): when a university has its floors cleaned, there’s a risk that, even with all precautions taken, someone will fall and sue. But universities don’t stop cleaning their floors. Why are some of them so risk-adverse when it concerns copyright? Fortunately, I’m not aware on many instances of universities forbidding the implementation of the Button. *Disclosure*. I’m one of the authors (along Harnad and Rodrigues) of the book chapter, cited in the text, which links the use of the Button to fair dealing provisions in UK-inspired jurisdictions (Canada, notably). December 02, 2015 5:38 p.m. <http://poynder.blogspot.com/2015/12/open-access-almost-oa-oa-policies-and.html?showComment=1449077883409#c8282836891062172795> <https://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847>