<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2013-11-26, Rick Anderson <<a href="mailto:rick.anderson@utah.edu">rick.anderson@utah.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><blockquote type="cite"><b>Stevan Harnad</b>: "Independent and critical thinking" researchers</blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite">will act according to the evidence: depend on it. They may be slow,</blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite">but they are not stupid…"</blockquote></div></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite"><b>RA: </b>Not only do I agree that they're not stupid, I wouldn't even say that<br>they're slow. And as for acting according to the evidence, I couldn't<br>agree with you more. In my experience talking about these issues with<br>faculty researchers, their ambivalence about OA is based neither on<br>stupidity nor on slowness, but on an insufficiency of evidence that OA<br>is always and necessarily the answer. Researchers tend to see OA<br>models as presenting a mixed bag of upsides and downsides (as any<br>publishing model does). Researchers are generally smart and quick<br>enough to immediately recognize, for example, that mandates constrain<br>their publishing options, so they approach mandate proposals<br>cautiously. One way they demonstrate caution is by insisting that such<br>mandates include powerful escape clauses, thus turning them into<br>"mandates" rather than mandates.<br></blockquote></div><br><div>(1) That making one's articles accessible online to all potential users</div><div>is preferable to making them accessible only to subscribers is a no-brainer </div><div>to figure out, with no further need of evidence, speed or sapience (though</div><div><a href="http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html">plenty</a> of <a href="http://oabutton.wordpress.com">evidence</a> is available) The ones insisting that "further" evidence </div><div>is needed to "prove" this are only the ones with a vested interest in the </div><div>subscriptions or the subscription income.</div><div><br></div><div>(2) What takes a bit more thought concerns <i>what to do about </i></div><div><i>publisher embargoes on authors providing (Green) OA</i>. Researchers</div><div>have been much slower to realize that they can provide Green OA</div><div>without any constraint whatsoever on their publishing options:</div><div>by depositing their refereed final drafts in their institutional repositories</div><div>immediately upon acceptance for publication, whether or not the</div><div>publisher embargoes Green OA, and making access closed (only the</div><div>metadata are OA) if the author wishes to comply with a publisher</div><div>embargo on OA.</div><div><br></div><div>(3) During any OA embargo, the repository's automated copy-request</div><div>Button ("<a href="http://t.co/4LoFmhWkx5">Almost-OA Button</a>") allows any would-be user to request and </div><div>any willing author to provide a copy with just one click each.</div><div><br></div><div>(4) Hence immediate institutional deposit can be mandated by all</div><div>institutions and all funders without any constraint on researchers'</div><div>publishing options. </div><div><br></div><div>(5) The "escape clause" is only required for the "copyright</div><div>reservation" policies (like Harvard's and MIT's), which are</div><div>adopted by faculty consensus. Although the reported opt-out</div><div>rate is only 5%, such policies do notionally constrain researchers'</div><div>publishing options, if the publisher refuses to publish their papers</div><div>under those conditions, or the author does not wish to try.</div><div><br></div><div>(6) But Harvard and MIT also have an immediate-deposit clause,</div><div>which requires immediate-deposit even if the authors opt out</div><div>of the copyright-reservation clause.</div><div><br></div><div>The purpose of the <a href="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://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbm=blg">immediate-deposit</a> mandate (<a href="http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031">Liege</a>/<a href="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=hefce+immediate+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbm=blg">HEFCE</a> model)</div><div>is to accelerate and motivate researchers in doing what is in their own </div><div>best interests anyway, once they have thought it through -- as you yourself </div><div>have <i>not</i> yet done, Rick, in not knowing, or not having understood</div><div>the difference between the copyright-reservation clause and the </div><div>immediate-deposit clause, and their respective implications for</div><div>publishing options as well as for potential research uptake and</div><div>impact.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>