On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Rick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
> SH: Mandates vary in strength. > > RA: OK, but when a policy says (in the words of Peter's "Good Practices" > guidelines) that "faculty are free to decide for or against OA for each of > their publications," there's simply nothing mandatory about it. In reality, > it's not a weakish mandate, it's the opposite of mandatory; it is optional. > So why insist on calling it the opposite of what it is? At best it seems > silly to do so—at worst, it kind of feels Orwellian. > With the ID/OA mandate, immediate-deposi<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>t is mandatory, but access-setting (immediate OA or embargo, with the copy-request Button) is up to the author. It's a compromise, to prevent publishers from deciding whether and when the deposit is made. It makes it possible to harmonize all mandates. And once it's universally adopted, the demise of embargoes is not far behind. (And meanwhile, the Button provides immediate Almost-OA, if the author wishes). Stevan Harnad >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
