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.h
tml