<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EMEW3|10227ef3e64fa14852520ae2c839fa90p2K9Z704tdb2|ecs.soton.ac.uk|1363858505.2569.388.camel@chassis.ecs.soton.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution
can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution<br>
<br>
- may have a <i><b>copy</b></i> if the identity of the file
submitted or its equivalence with the version of record can be
established<br>
<br>
- may have an <i><b>OA copy</b></i>. But to establish that, someone
at the institution (the library?) must check the copyright notice
in it (if any) and possibly consult with the authors about his/her
contract with the publisher (because, legally, something found on
the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not count), ...<br>
<br>
<br>
I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other
side as well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should
therefore be stopped.<br>
<br>
Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from
being about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of
science. And setting up of mandates and policies which are the least
costly to enforce. Cost to the admin dept., of course! Where the
library, if involved in this, may morph into a branch of admin. <br>
<br>
How very German! Enjoy!<br>
<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
Hans<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>