[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# [drf:846] STM's briefing on IR and public access mandates

- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:03:39 +0900 (東京 (標準時))

    みなさま、

    本日、AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
    SPARC Open Access Forum, BOAI Forum <boai-forum ＠ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
    jisc-repositoriesなどのメーリングリストにStevan Harnadからの投稿があり、
    STMという出版者団体(主要STM系出版者(商業出版社、学会出版者、大学出版会
    を含む))が会員に対して回覧した標記テーマに関する報告書の一部を入手した
    Harnadが、いくつかの部分を(無断で)紹介していましたので、ちょっと要約を
    つけて転送します。

    その紹介された内容の骨子は、以下のとおりですが、Harnadとしては、一貫し
    て、機関リポジトリにおけるセルフ・アーカイブは著者が利用可能性を向上、
    補完するためのものであり、出版事業ではなく、出版産業の目的に抵触しない
    という観点からコメントしています。したがって、1については当然であるとし
    て、2の前半、9, 10, 11, 15については条件つきですが是認しています。また、
    4や7については、たとえそうだとしても、抜刷献呈は学術出版の伝統であり、
    機関リポジトリによる配布はそれを継承するものであると言っています。そし
    て、2の後半、8の問題設定、12については、機関リポジトリと出版事業との混
    同とによるものと分析しています。

    それ以外にも、いろいろ微妙な論点はありますが、本文をお読みください。

    いずれにせよ、STM出版者側が機関リポジトリについての統一見解を示した文
    書だと思いますので、全文が世に出てくるのを待ちたいところです。

    土屋
    -------------------------------------
    [Harnadによる書き抜きの抄訳]

    1. 機関リポジトリに関する出版者のポリシーは、機関リポジトリへの義務的
       寄託が出版事業に対してどの程度の影響を与えるかよって決まる。

    2. 現在の出版・頒布は成功しており、十分である。機関リポジトリは、劣っ
       たバージョンを出版するにすぎない。

    3. 機関リポジトリによる出版は、品質、保存、発見可能性の保証について不
       十分なものである。

    4. 著作権の排他的譲渡は、代替的バージョンの入手可能性によって出版者の
       経済的帳尻があわなくならないようにするためには本質的。出版者が付加
       する価値は、この排他的権利取得の見返り。

    5. 機関リポジトリがリスクとなると考えているのは出版者だけではない。たと
       えば、"Innkeeper at the Roach Motel"という文章で図書館員のDorothea
       Saloは機関リポジトリの費用対効果を疑問視している。

    6. 機関リポジトリのポリシーについて、「著者の権利」にかかわるポリシーで
       あるとか、「オープンアクセス」にかかわるポリシーだとかというのは不正
       確である。

    7. メディアへ応答する際の論点: 予約購読による出版は排他的な著作権譲渡
       を必要とする。おそらく、オープンアクセス出版はそうではない。

    8. われわれ(出版者側)は、機関リポジトリ寄託を是認すべきか?するとした
       らどのような条件のもとでか?

       プレプリント・リポジトリ、非義務化機関リポジトリ、義務化機関リポジ
       トリとの間に区別をつけるべきか?

       機関内利用者のみ利用可能な機関リポジトリ寄託のみを是認すべきか?

       エンバーゴ期間終了後のみウェブでオープンになる寄託を是認すべきか?

       機関リポジトリから出版者のウェブサイト上の最終版へのリンクのみを是
       認すべきか?

       ウェブ全体にオープンな寄託は、対価支払いにあるものに対してのみ是認
       すべきか?

    9. メディアに対しては、出版者が現在において過去のいかなる時よりも雑誌
       論文を利用しやすくしているということを伝えること。

    10. オンラインの査読制雑誌は、研究助成者、大学、著者、そして著者のキャ
        リアにとって非常に大事である。

    11. 機関リポジトリへの寄託は、編集、査読、その他の活動がある雑誌出版と
        おなじものではない。

    12. 機関リポジトリによって、出版者がその付加価値サービスをできなくさせ
        ある、ないし、やりたくなくさせるような質の低い選択肢を提供している
        のかもしれない。

    13. 機関リポジトリにも金は必要であり、ただ並行に出版するとか利用を提供
        するというだけ以外の明確な目標があるときにだけ構築されるべきである。

    14. 研究者は、機関リポジトリが研究成果出版・普及に対して与え得るダメー
        ジについて知らされるべきである。

    15、研究者は、自由に「どこでどうやって出版するかを決定」できなればなら
        ない。

    16. 自分の被雇用者に雑誌発表論文のための一定の権利を保留することを求め
        る機関は、雑誌出版者のビジネスを阻害しないよう協力して行動しなけれ
        ばならない。

    ======================================================================
    [Harnadの投稿の全文]

    [Two members of STM <http://www.stm-assoc.org/> have kindly, at my request,
    allowed me to see a copy of the STM Briefing on IRs and Deposit Mandates. I
    focused the commentary below on quoted excerpts, but before posting it I
    asked STM CEO Michael Mabe <http://www.stm-assoc.org/whos-who-at-stm/> for
    permission to include the quotes. As I do not yet have an answer, I am
    posting the commentary with paraphrases of the passages I had hoped to
    quote. If I receive permission from Michael, I will repost this with the
    verbatim quotes. As it stands, it is self-contained and self-explanatory.]

    The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical
    Publishers (STM) <http://www.stm-assoc.org/> has circulated a fairly anodyne
    briefing to its member publishers. Although it contains a few familiar items
    of misinformation that need to be corrected (yet
    again<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/25-guid.html>),
    there is nothing alarming or subversive in it, along the lines of the
    PRISM/pitbull<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html>
    misadventure
    of 2007.

    Below are some quote/comments along with the (gentle) corrections of the
    persistent bits of misinformation: My responses are unavoidably -- almost
    ritually -- repetitive, because the errors and misinformation themselves are
    so repetitive.**

    *STM BRIEFING DOCUMENT (FOR PUBLISHING EXECUTIVES) ON INSTITUTIONAL
    REPOSITORIES AND MANDATED DEPOSIT POLICIES***

    ****

    *[Publisher policy on IRs is concerned with how IR deposit mandates might
    affect publishing and publishing revenues, particularly in the case of
    refereed final drafts.]***

    **This is a fair statement: The issues for the research community are
    research access, uptake, usage, applications,
    impact<http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html> and
    progress. The issue for the publisher community is their financial bottom
    line.**

    *[Publishing and distribution today is successful and adequate. IRs publish
    an inferior version.]***

    ***(1) *IRs do not publish: peer-reviewed journal publishers publish. IRs
    provide access to their own authors' (peer-reviewed, published) output* --
    for all those would-be users webwide who cannot afford access to the
    publisher's toll-based proprietary version* -- so as to maximize the access,
    uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress of their research output.

    *(2)* The version of the published article that the authors deposit in their
    IRs is the final, revised, peer-reviewed draft (the
    "postprint<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint>"),
    accepted for publication, but *not* the publisher's proprietary
    PDF<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/460-guid.html>.
    Hence deposit does have the quality controls provided (for free) by the
    peer-reviewers. (If the copy-editing should happen to detect any substantive
    errors -- which is*exceedingly* rare! -- these too can be corrected in the
    deposited postprint.)**

    *[Publishing by IRs compromises quality, preservation and discoverability.]*
    **

    **IRs are not *substitutes<http://blogsearch.google.ca/blogsearch?hl=en&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&q=supplement+substitute+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&btnG=Search+Blogs>
    * for publishing but
    *supplements<http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Ausers.ecs.soton.ac.uk+supplement+substitute&btnG=Search>
    * to it, providing access to research for access-denied would-be users, for
    the sake of maximizing research progress. The deposited postprints have
    undergone the essential quality-control for researchers: peer review.

    The discoverability of postprints in IRs (via search engines like google,
    google scholar, citeseerx, scirus and scopus) is excellent. No problems, and
    no complaints from all the would-be users webwide who would otherwise lack
    access to them.

    (Preservation<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:users.ecs.soton.ac.uk+preservation>
    is
    a red herring: Preservation of what? As supplements, rather than
    substitutes, authors' self-archived postprints are not the versions with the
    primary preservation burden (although IR deposits are of course being
    preserved <http://preserv.eprints.org/>). The primary preservation burden is
    on the publisher's proprietary version, the official version of record, as
    it always has been.)**

    *[Exclusive copyright transfer is essential so the availability of
    alternative versions does not prevent publishers from making ends meet.
    Publishers add value in return for the exclusive rights.]
    ***

    ***(a)* In their IRs, authors deposit *supplementary* versions of their own
    peer-reviewed publications in order to maximize their uptake, usage,
    applications, and impact, by maximizing access to them.

    *(b)* So far, all evidence <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/> is that
    this self-archiving has not undermined the traditional toll-based
    (subscription/license) funding model for peer-reviewed journal publishing:
    rather, they co-exist peacefully <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/>.

    *(c)* But if and when IR deposit should ever make subscriptions
    unsustainable for covering the remaining essential costs of peer-reviewed
    journal publishing, there is an
    obvious<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm>
     alternative <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15753/>:conversion to the Gold
    OA publishing<http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1>
    funding
    model.

    *(d)* What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research
    community, however, is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake,
    usage, applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) merely in
    order to insure publishers' current funding model against any possibility
    that universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding
    model.

    *(e)* Unlike trade authors <http://cogprints.org/1639/1/resolution.htm#1.1>,
    researchers transfer to the publishers of their peer-reviewed research all
    the rights to sell the published text, *without asking for any royalties or
    fees in return*. They have always, however, exercised the right to
    distribute free copies of their own articles to all would-be users who
    requested them, for research purposes. In the web era, OA
    IRs<http://roar.eprints.org/> have
    become the natural way for researchers to continue that practice, in order
    to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and
    progress.**

    *[It is not just publishers that think IRs pose risks; librarian Dorothea
    Salo has questioned IRs' costs and usefulness in "Innkeeper at the Roach
    Motel".]***

    **(Publishers might do better to pay serious attention to the substantive
    rationale <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/> and
    evidence<http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/authors/Sale,_AHJ.html>concerning
    IR deposits and IR deposit
    mandates<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/358-guid.html>,
    rather than to the opining of roach motel keepers.)**

    *[It is inaccurate to speak of IR policies as "authors' rights" policies or
    "open access" policies.]***

    **IR deposit mandates are accurately described as institutional open access
    policy <http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php>. (But IR
    deposit mandates <http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/> are
    certainly not "authors' rights" policies.)**

    *[Talking points in responding to the media: subscription publishing does
    require exclusive copyright transfer; perhaps OA publishing doesn't.]***

    **This mixes up issues: The only relevant issue here for IRs and IR deposit
    policies is whether or not the publisher has formally endorsed providing
    open access to the peer-reviewed postprint immediately upon acceptance for
    publication. (This is called a "Green" publisher policy on OA
    self-archiving<http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html>.
    It has nothing to do with author-pays/Gold
    OA<http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html> publishing
    models. And authors paying for the "right" to
    deposit<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/390-guid.html>
    would
    be absurd and out of the question.)**

    *[Should we endorse IR deposit? Under what conditions?]***

    **If the publisher has formally endorsed providing open access to the
    peer-reviewed postprint immediately upon acceptance for publication, the
    publisher is Green <http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php>. If there is no
    endorsement, or OA is embargoed, the publisher is Gray.**

    *[Should we make distinctions between preprint repositories, unmandated IRs
    and mandated IRs?]***

    **The only potential distinction is between authors' own institutional
    IRs<http://roar.eprints.org/?action=home&q=&country=&version=&type=institutional&order=name&submit=Filter>
    and
    institution-external3rd-party<http://blogsearch.google.ca/blogsearch?hl=en&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&q=3rd+party+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&btnG=Search+Blogs>
     central repositories<http://roar.eprints.org/?action=home&q=&country=&version=&type=subject&order=name&submit=Filter>.
    Although OA is OA (and means free online accessibility webwide, irrespective
    of the locus of deposit), some publishers only endorse deposit in the
    author's own IR, in order not to endorse 3rd-party free-riding by rival
    publishers: This limitation is innocuous, and no problem for OA. (In fact,
    there are many reasons why it is *preferable* for both kinds of Deposit
    mandates -- those from funders as well as from institutions -- toconverge on
    institutional IR
    deposit<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html>,
    from which the metadata can then be harvested centrally.)

    What would be arbitrary (and absurd, and unenforceable) would be to attempt
    to endorse only voluntary IR deposit and not mandatory IR deposit by
    authors!**

    *[Should we only endorse IR deposits that are open only to
    institution-internal users?]***

    **Let there be no ambiguity about this: Such a policy would be Gray, not
    Green, on OA IR self-archiving.**

    *[Should we endorse deposits that are open webwide only after an embargo
    period?]***

    **Without an embargo, this policy would be fully Green, and neither IRs nor
    OA ask for anything more. With an embargo, it would be Gray.**

    *[Should we only allow links from IRs to final versions on the publisher's
    website?]***

    **If the posting on the publisher's website is done immediately upon
    acceptance for publication, and access to it is immediately open to all
    users webwide, that would be fully Green too. (For such cases, IRs could,
    for internal record-keeping purposes, mandate the deposit of the author's
    postprint in the IR, but in Closed Access, with the OA link going to the
    publisher's freely accessible version for the duration of the publisher's
    embargo on making the IR version OA too: no problem.)**

    *[Should we endorse deposits that are open webwide only for a fee?]***

    **Paying to deposit in researchers' own IRs would be
    absurd<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/390-guid.html>,
    and roundly rejected as such by the research community.**

    *[Inform the media that publishers have made journal articles more
    accessible today than ever before.]***

    **True (though thanks also to the advent of the Web). But this literature is
    not yet accessible to all those would-be users webwide whose institutions
    cannot afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published -- and no
    institution<http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats>
    can
    afford to subscribe to all or most peer-reviewed
    journals<http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/>.
    It is in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications,
    impact and progress by making *all* research accessible to *all* of its
    would-be users webwide (not just those whose institutions can afford to
    subscribe) that the OA movement was launched. And that is why Green OA
    self-archiving <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15852/>, generated by funder
    and institutional IR deposit
    mandates<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/>,
    is growing, to the great benefit of research, researchers, their
    institutions, their funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that
    funds the researchers' research and institutions.

    (The publishing industry has to remind itself that *the reason peer-reviewed
    research is conducted, peer-reviewed and published is not in order to fund
    the publishing industry*, but in order to maximize research access, uptake,
    usage, applications, impact and progress.)**

    *[Online refereed journals are crucial for funders, universities, authors,
    and authors' careers.]***

    **Correct. And both the research itself, and the peer review, are provided
    by the research community, free of charge, to the publishing community, in
    exchange for the neutral 3rd-party management of the peer review, and the
    certification of the outcome with the journal's name and track-record. The
    publishing community is compensated for the value it has added by receiving
    the exclusive right to sell the resultant joint product (and no need to pay
    authors royalties from the sales of their texts).

    But that does not mean that researchers cannot and will not continue to give
    away their own peer-reviewed research findings also to those would-be users
    who cannot afford to buy the resultant joint product. Nor does it mean that
    researchers' institutions and funders cannot and will not mandate that they
    do so, in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications,
    impact and progress for the benefit of research, researchers, their
    institutions, their funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that
    funds the researchers' research and institutions.**

    *[Depositing in an IR is not equivalent to journal publishing, with its
    editing, peer review, and other added values.]***

    **Correct. And individual authors depositing the final, peer-reviewed drafts
    of their published articles in their IRs is not publication but
    supplementary access provision, for those would-be users who cannot afford
    paid access to the publisher's proprietary version.**

    *[IRs might provide a lower quality option that makes publishers unable or
    unwilling to perform their value-added services.]***

    **This is merely the repetition of the same point made earlier:

    No, IR deposits of peer-reviewed postprints of published articles are not
    publishing, nor substitutes for publishing, they are *author supplements*,
    provided for those would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the
    publisher's proprietary version:

        *(a)* In their IRs, authors deposit supplementary versions of their own
    peer-reviewed publications in order to maximize their uptake, usage,
    applications, impact, by maximizing access to them.

        *(b)* So far, all evidence <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/> is
    that this self-archiving has not undermined the traditional toll-based
    (subscription/license) funding model for peer-reviewed journal publishing:
    rather, theyco-exist peacefully <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/>.

        *(c)* If and when IR deposit should ever make subscriptions
    unsustainable for covering the remaining essential costs of peer-reviewed
    journal publishing, there is an
    obvious<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm>
     alternative <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15753/>:conversion to the Gold
    OA publishing<http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1>
    funding
    model.

        *(d)* What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research
    community, however, is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake,
    usage, applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) in order
    to insure publishers' current funding model against the possibility that
    universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.

        *(e)* Unlike trade authors, researchers transfer to the publishers of
    their peer-reviewed research all the rights to sell the published text,
    without asking for any royalties or fees in return. They have always,
    however, exercised the right to distribute free copies of their own articles
    to all would-be users who requested them. In the web era, OA
    IRs<http://roar.eprints.org/> have
    become the natural way for researchers to continue that practice, in order
    to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and
    progress.**

    *[IRs cost money and should only be created if they have a distinct goal
    rather than just parallel publishing and access-provision]***

    **IRs are undertaken by universities and research institutions -- i.e., the
    research community. It is not at all clear why the publishing community is
    providing this advice to the research community on its undertaking...**

    *[Researchers should be advised of the damage IRs could do to research
    publication and dissemination.]***

    **Researchers can and should be fully briefed about the already
    demonstrated benefits <http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html> to
    research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, R&D industries,
    and the tax-paying public that funds the researchers' research and the
    researcher's institutions -- the benefits generated by maximizing research
    access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress through Green OA
    self-archiving and IR deposit mandates.

    Researchers need this full briefing on research benefits, because it is
    based on actual facts and experience.

    But is the publishing community suggesting that -- in addition to these
    empirical and practical facts -- researchers should also be briefed on
    *publishers'
    speculations about how Green OA self-archiving might conceivably induce an
    eventual change in publishers' funding model*?

    Why?

        If and when IR deposit should ever make subscriptions unsustainable for
    covering the remaining essential costs of peer-reviewed journal publishing,
    there is an obvious<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm>
     alternative <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15753/>:conversion to the Gold
    OA publishing<http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1>
    funding
    model.

    What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research community,
    however, is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake, usage,
    applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) in order to
    protect publishers' current funding model from the possibility that
    universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.**

    *[Researchers should stay free "to choose how and where to publish."]***

    **By all means. And they should continue to exercise their freedom to
    supplement access to their published research by depositing their postprints
    in their IRs for all would-be users webwide who cannot afford access to the
    publisher's proprietary version.**

    *[Institutions that want their employees to reserve certain rights for their
    published journal articles should collaborate with journal publishers so as
    not to damage their business.]***

    **It would be excellent if all authors reserved OA self-archiving rights in
    their copyright agreements with their publishers. Then all authors could
    immediately deposit all their peer-reviewed research in their IRs, and
    immediately make them OA without any further ado. But for at least
    63%<http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php> of
    journals, *formally reserving that right is already unnecessary*, as those
    journals are already Green, so those articles can already be made
    immediately OA today by self-archiving them in the author's IR.

    For the remaining 37%, *their authors can likewise already deposit the
    postprints in their IRs immediately upon acceptance without the need of
    either copyright reservation or any formal endorsement or permission from
    the publisher*: if they wish, they can set access to the deposit as "Closed
    Access" -- meaning only the author can access it. Then the authors can
    provide "Almost OA" to those deposits with the help of their IR's "email
    eprint request"
    button<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html>:
    Individual would-be users who reach a Closed Access deposit link (led there
    by the deposit's OA metadata) need merely press the Button and insert their
    email address in order to trigger an immediate automatic email to the author
    to request a single copy for personal research purposes; the author receives
    the eprint request, which contains a URL on which he can click to trigger an
    immediate automatic email to the would-be user containing a single copy of
    the requested postprint. This is not OA, but it is Almost-OA.

    OA is indisputably better for research and researchers than Almost-OA. But
    63% OA + 37% Almost-OA will tide over the worldwide research community's
    immediate usage needs for the time being, until the inevitable transition to
    100% OA that will follow from the worldwide adoption of Immediate IR Deposit
    mandates by institutions and funders.

    *This* is the information on which the research community needs to be
    clearly briefed. The publishing community's conjectures about funding models
    are important, and of undoubted interest to the publishing community itself,
    but they should in no way constrain the research community in maximizing
    access to its own refereed research output in the Web era by mandating IR
    deposit universally.

    To repeat:

        What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research
    community is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake, usage,
    applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) in order to
    insure publishers' current funding model against the possibility that
    universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.

        The publishing industry has to remind itself that *the reason
    peer-reviewed research is conducted, peer-reviewed and published is not in
    order to fund the publishing industry*, but in order to maximize research
    access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress.

    [It is much harder, however, for institutions to successfully achieve
    consensus on adopting an IR deposit mandate *at all* if the mandate in
    question is a copyright-reservation mandate rather than an IR deposit
    mandate. And because it is even harder to ensure compliance with a
    copyright-reservation mandate (because of authors' worries that the
    negotiations with their publishers to reserve immediate-OA self-archiving
    rights might not succeed and might instead ut at risk their right to "choose
    how and where to publish"), the one prominent institutional copyright
    reservation mandate
    (Harvard<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html>'s)
    contains an *author opt-out clause* that makes the mandate into a
    non-mandate. The simple solution is to* add an Immediate-Deposit
    requirement, without opt-out*. Even simpler still, adopt an
    Immediate-Deposit mandate as the default mandate
    model<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html>
    suitable
    for all, worldwide, and strengthen the mandate only if and when there is
    successful consensus and compliance in favor of a stronger mandate.]

    *Stevan Harnad <http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/>*
    American Scientist Open Access
    Forum<http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html>

- Follow-Ups:
  - [drf:851] Re: STM's briefing on IR and public access mandates
    - From: Syun Tutiya
  - [drf:847] Re: [drf:846] STM's briefing on IR and public access mandates
    - From: Masamitsu Kuriyama

- Prev by Date: [drf:845] 【リマインダ】Re: [drf:803] DRF大阪地域ワークショップ(DRF-Senri)のおしらせ
- Next by Date: [drf:847] Re: [drf:846] STM's briefing on IR and public access mandates
- Previous by thread: [drf:844] 岡山共同リポジトリ　第1号
- Next by thread: [drf:847] Re: [drf:846] STM's briefing on IR and public access mandates
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread