From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:54:49 +0100

     What faculty authors can do to ensure open access to their work
     through their institution

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

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‚~_at_~Ys Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted to adopt a policy
     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

     [II] The deposit requirement by itself is valuable because it ensures
     that the University‚~_at_~Ys 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‚~_at_~Y 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
     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

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?

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

     One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind

Stevan Harnad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:24:07 -0400
From: Jennifer McLennan <jennifer -->
To: SPARC Open Access Forum <SPARC-OAForum -->

For immediate release
April 28, 2008

For more information, contact:

Jennifer McLennan, SPARC
(202) 296-2296 ext. 121
jennifer --

Kaitlin Thaney, Science Commons
(617) 395-7413
kaitlin --


New whitepaper offers ten simple steps to maximizing campus-wide
research impact

Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA - April 28, 2008 - SPARC and Science
Commons have released "Open Doors and Open Minds: What faculty authors
can do to ensure open access to their work through their institution."
The new white paper assists institutions in adopting policies that
ensure the widest practical exposure for scholarly works produced,
such as that adopted by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences in

Co-authored by SPARC and Science Commons, "Open Doors and Open Minds"
is a how-to guide for faculty, administrators, and advocates to
formulate an institutional license grant that delivers open access to
campus research outputs. Some institutions are considering such
policies as they work to comply with new requirements for public
access from national agencies including the U.S. National Institutes
of Health.

The white paper details the motivations behind the Harvard policy,
offers a concise explanation of U.S. Copyright Law and how it relates
to the scholarly publishing process, and makes specific suggestions
for faculty and advocates to pursue a campus-wide policy. The guide
offers a detailed plan of action, a series of institutional license
options, and a 10-point list of actions for realizing a policy and
adopting the right University License to meet the institution's
particular needs.

Three different licenses, which are granted to the institution by the
author, are offered for consideration:

Case 1. Broad license grant - a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
worldwide license to exercise all of the author's exclusive rights
under copyright, including the right to grant sublicenses.

Case 2. Intermediate license grant - involves license restrictions
that modify the scope of the license grant in Case 1.

Case 3. Narrow license grant - grants to the university only the right
to deposit the article in the institutional repository, and to make it
available through the repository Web site.

The paper also recommends mandatory deposit of articles in
institutional repositories. Mandatory deposit may be adopted
regardless of the licensing policy chosen.

"The Harvard policy is a recognition that the Internet creates
opportunities to radically accelerate distribution and impact for
scholarly works," said John Wilbanks, Vice President of Science at
Creative Commons. "As more universities move to increase the reach of
their faculty's work, it's important that faculty members have a clear
understanding of the key issues involved and the steps along the path
that Harvard has trail-blazed. This paper is a foundational document
for universities and faculty to use as they move into the new world of
Open Access scholarly works."

"Everyone - faculty, librarians, administrators, and other advocates -
has the power to initiate change at their institution," said Heather
Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC. "By championing an open access
policy, helping to inform your colleagues about the benefits of a
policy change, and identifying the best license and most effective
path to adoption, it can be done."

"Open Doors and Open Minds" and the 10-step action list is openly
available on the SPARC Web site at

For further details on the sponsors' advocacy and author rights
programs, please visit SPARC at and Science
Commons at


Science Commons

Science Commons designs strategies and tools for faster, more
efficient web-enabled scientific research. Science Commons identifies
unnecessary barriers to research, crafts policy guidelines and legal
agreements to lower those barriers, and develops technology to make
research data and materials easier to find and use. The goal of
Science Commons is to speed the translation of data into discovery and
to unlock the value of research so more people can benefit from the
work scientists are doing. Science Commons is online at


SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), with
SPARC Europe and SPARC Japan, is an international alliance of more
than 800 academic and research libraries working to create a more open
system of scholarly communication. SPARC's advocacy, educational and
publisher partnership programs encourage expanded dissemination of
research. SPARC is on the Web at

Jennifer McLennan
Director of Communications
(The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)
Save the date: The SPARC Digital Repositories Meeting 2008
November 17 18, 2008 | Baltimore, MD
(202) 296-2296 ext 121
jennifer --
Received on Mon Apr 28 2008 - 22:41:03 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:18 GMT