Difference between revisions of "Good practices for university open-access policies"

From Harvard Open Access Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 13: Line 13:
* Last revised July 4, 2014. Version 1.1.
* Last revised July 16, 2014. Version 1.1.
* Suggested short URL for this guide = [http://bit.ly/goodoa bit.ly/goodoa]
* Suggested short URL for this guide = [http://bit.ly/goodoa bit.ly/goodoa]

Revision as of 01:32, 17 July 2014

  • Last revised July 16, 2014. Version 1.1.


  • This is a guide to good practices for university open-access (OA) policies. It's based on the type of policy adopted at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, U of Kansas, U of Oregon, Trinity, Oberlin, Rollins, Wake Forest, Duke, U of Puerto Rico, Hawaii - Manoa, Columbia, Strathmore, Emory, Princeton, Jomo Kenyatta, Utah State, Bifröst, Miami, California - San Francisco, the U Massachusetts Medical School, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, and many other institutions. However, it includes recommendations that should be useful to universities taking other approaches.
  • The guide is designed to evolve. No early version will cover every point on which good practices would be desirable or might be discernible. We plan to revise and enlarge it over time, building on our own experience and the experience of colleagues elsewhere. We welcome suggestions.
  • The guide was in the works for several years before the first public version launched in October 2012. It's one small part of the larger effort described in Recommendation 4.2 of the ten-year anniversary statement of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (September 2012): Supporters of open access "should develop guidelines to universities and funding agencies considering OA policies, including recommended policy terms, best practices, and answers to frequently asked questions."
  • We deliberately call our recommendations "good practices" rather than "best practices". On many points, there are multiple, divergent good practices. Good practices can change as circumstances change, and as we learn more. Good practices are easier to identify than best practices. And there can be wider agreement on which practices are good than on which practices are best.
  • We hope the guide will be useful to institutions considering an OA policy, and to faculty, students, librarians, and administrators who would like their institution to start considering one.
  • The guide is written and edited by Stuart Shieber and Peter Suber.
    • Stuart is a Professor of Computer Science and the Faculty Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication.
    • Peter is the Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication, Director of the Harvard Open Access Project, and Faculty Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. The guide reflects their views as individuals, not necessarily those of Harvard University.
    • Emily Kilcer researched and wrote the section on Filling the repository. Emily is a Project Coordinator at the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and Research Assistant at the Harvard Open Access Project.
  • We thank the following colleagues and organizations for their support, and hope to enlarge both lists over time. Please contact us if you or your organization may be interested. Readers should not assume that consulting experts and endorsing organizations support every recommendation in the guide.