Difference between revisions of "Notes on best practices for university OA policies"

From Harvard Open Access Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
* For the guide itself, see [[Best practices for university OA policies]].
#REDIRECT [[Notes on good practices for university open-access policies]]
** [[Drafting a policy]]
** [[Adopting a policy]]
** [[Implementing a policy]]
** [[Filling the repository]]
** [[Talking about a policy]]
** [[Revising this guide]]
* Currently both the draft guide and these notes are private in the sense that no outside web pages deliberately link to them. However, the front page and this notes page link to the sub-pages, the pages link to one another, and some pages automatically created by the wiki software link to each.  Is that private enough for our purposes?
{| align="right"
  | __TOC__
== To-do list ==
* Lock the pages to prevent random public edits.
* Identify the authors or current participants somehow.
** Could do it by institution (eventually, Harvard, MIT, SPARC, EOS...) and/or by the names of individual contributors.
* Decide the final title. It will be hard to change later.
** I like the present title. But I also like the slightly longer, ''Guide to best practices for university OA policies''.
** Either way, should we spell out "OA"?
** If we change the title, the front page URL changes and we have to change cross-ref URLs on all the sub-pages.
** When title (hence URL) final, then PS make standard short URL.
* Decide who is authorized to revise this doc. On the [[Revising this guide]] page, we should explain the revision process. Who gets to edit? Who gets to be part of the consensus? Who gets to join the discussions? 
** Decide who is authorized to see this page of notes.
* Is the draft guide ready to share with the other HOAP principals?
** Is it ready to share with potential partner institutions? I'd like to start with SPARC (Heather), EOS (Alma), and MIT (Ellen). In addition to asking for their suggestions, I'd like to ask them how we should formulate what it means to be a supporting institution. What language would they be comfortable with? What language do they think would help bring in others? After that, I'd like to run it by EIFL, OAIG, COAPI, and some universities with Harvard-style OA policies.
** Obviously Harvard will be one of the listed, supporting institutions. But how should we put this? "Harvard University"? (Will that require a time-consuming approval process?) Harvard Open Access Project? (Easy.) Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication? (Easy.)
* Decide whether every page (section) should have its own "last revised [date]" notice. Currently, just the front page has one.
* Before release, get other key partners to make their own suggestions and sign on to the result, e.g. SPARC, EOS, EIFL, OAIG, MIT.
** Make offer to COAPI, for courtesy; but don't expect sign-on since it (deliberately) wants to be hospitable to institutions with any kind of policy, strong or weak
** Find a prominent way to name and link to the supporting/endorsing organizations.
* Decide whether to launch a discussion forum (other than the wiki page discussion tab).
** There should be some kind of private discussion space for endorsing/participating institutions.
** Do we also want a public discussion forum. If we launch one, then link to it from the [[Revising this guide]] page.
* Decide whether to make the preface a separate page, like the main sections. I'm inclined to keep it on the front page, at least while it is comparatively short.
* We say in the preface that there are points on which there is no "best practice" yet.
** Decide whether we should ''omit'' any current recommendations until support or evidence for them solidifies further. We could move them to the [[Revising this guide]] page.
* The whole HOAP wiki is under a CC-BY license, and every page says soon in the footer. I hope we can all agree to use CC-BY for the guide. If not, then we must either override the licensing code for these pages or we should move the guide out of the HOAP wiki.
== Revisions to consider ==
This section both for possible new entries and suggested revisions to existing entries.
* Should we add a new entry (to become the very first entry) on the goals of a policy?
** We could simply recommend that a policy start by describing the policy goals. Or we could recommend specific goals to mention.
* Should we add a new entry (section on Implementing) on how to handle the Elsevier policy allowing green OA except at institutions with OA mandates?
* Should we add a new entry (section on Implementing) on handicap access to the repository?
* In entry on "[[Drafting a policy#Deposit in the repository|Deposit in the repository]]" (section on Drafting)
** should we include a bullet on deposit in disciplinary repositories? here or in the implementation section?
* In entry on "[[Drafting a policy#Waiver option|Waiver option]]" (section on Drafting)
** Should we include language from the Harvard waiver letter? (Stuart)
** Should we include a bullet on retroactive waivers? Here's Stuart's position on them: "Our interpretation (consistent with the language of the policy) has been that an author can request a waiver at any time after the policy applies (that is, when copyright vests in an article). Before or after publication is fine. The waiver would mean that the university would no longer hold a license to the article under the OAP (but might by some other means). One reason for this interpretation is allowing a simple remedy for an author who is dinged by a publisher after the article is published."
* In entry on "[[Drafting a policy#Transferring rights back to the author|Transferring rights back to the author]]" (section on Drafting)
** Is it fair to say that authors retain/regain all rights to their work, or all rights except the right to allow commercial use?
* In entry on "[[Adopting a policy#Other tips for the adoption process|Other tips for the adoption process]]" (section on Adopting)
** Make each bullet a separate entry? Avoid a "miscellany" entry like this one?
** Where we recommend pointing out how a draft policy uses language successfully adopted and implemented elsewhere, consider linking  to our [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s44ICjM5pa8JBwJd9yol1IiR1ET68fcLt4szqGTSYOo/edit list of institutions with harvard-style policies]. If we do, we'll have to decide how to deal with institutions that started with harvard-style language and then botched it in revision.
* In entry on "[[Implementing a policy#Individualized writing|Individualized writing]]" (section on Implementing)
** How does MIT do this? Get details from several other schools.
* In entry on "[[Implementing a policy#Facilitating waivers|Facilitating waivers]]" (section on Implementing)
** Current draft says that Harvard can share the code for its web form. Is that true?
* In entry on "[[Implementing a policy#Repository withdrawals|Repository withdrawals]]" (section on Implementing)
** In response to a publisher take-down request, we recommend compliance. But should the article be removed or merely go dark?
** Right now we take a position on what to do if the author wishes to withdraw an article already on deposit (e.g. because it is mistaken, embarrassing, superseded by a newer version, etc.). But should we reclassify this as a point on which there is not yet a consensus best practice?
* In entry on "[[Implementing a policy#Working with publishers|Working with publishers]]" (section on Implementing)
** Add a bullet on Harvard-style "treaties" with publishers?
** Add a bullet on auto-deposit by publishers? on permission to deposit published editions? on permission to harvest published editions from the pub web site? on embargoes?
* Consider recommending two or more practices on certain points, where the practices may diverge but are all worth recommending.
** We needn't assume there is a single "best" practice on each point.
** We already make plural recommendations on a few points, but we should be open to it on every point.
** If we say somewhere that we are open in this way, we'll be more welcoming to different institutions and could bring in more endorsements. On the other hand, we may make it harder for ourselves to say ''no'' to weak suggestions.
* Consider elaborating each entry with some rationale, including (as far as possible) links to literature and evidence.
* Consider writing an executive summary of the guide, for rapid orientation or busy committees. Or consider making two editions, a short one for busy committees and a full-length version for everyone else.
* Consider including a section on frequently asked questions and frequently heard objections and misunderstandings
* Consider adding a glossary, especially for jargon and abbreviations: OA, TA, and terms like gold, green, etc.
== Works to consult ==
Eventually incorporate ideas and language from the following works. We needn't do this before the initial release.
Also consider listing and linking to these works. Should we include a short bibliography of recommended other reading?
* Harvard's annotated [http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/modelpolicy Model OA Policy]
* Harvard's guidelines and FAQs
** [http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/authors/policy_guide for authors]
** [http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/publishers for publishers]
* the [http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/dash/termsofuse DASH terms of use], which make DASH deposits libre OA
* PS article on [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/02-02-09.htm#choicepoints OA policy options for funding agencies and universities]
* Alma Swan's [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access], UNESCO, March 2012.
* the recommendations in the BOAI-10 doc
* SPARC [http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/sparc_boycott_next_steps.pdf guide for campus action]
== Notes toward ''funder'' guide ==
* Eventually make a second guide for ''funder'' policies. It could be a separate doc, or it could be a new section of the first doc.
** In the latter case: "Follow all the recommendations above but with the following additions and subtractions based on the different circumstances of universities and funding agencies."
* When we do, then incorporate ideas and language from these docs:
** PS article on [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/02-02-09.htm#choicepoints OA policy options for funding agencies and universities]
** Phil Malone's reports recommending that funders require libre OA under open licenses; [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2009/Open_Content_Licensing_for_Foundations 2009 original report] and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2011/foundation_funding 2011 update]
** this [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33044 CC project]
* Entry on why it's OK for funders, but not universities, to limit author freedom to submit work to the journals of their choice.
* Entry on offering funds to pay publication fees at fee-based OA journals.
** Entry on similar support for no-fee OA journals.
* Entry on allowing gold to substitute for green.
* Entry on what counts as a repository suitable for deposit.
* Entry on extra terms to require when funder pays for gold or when the author chooses gold as a substitute for green.
** on libre
** on immediacy
** on version
* Entry on what kinds of work arising from funded research are covered by the policy
** yes scholarly articles; but what about data? books? conference presentations? theses and dissertations? digitization projects?
* Entry making clear that policy only works that authors voluntarily publish or make public.
** Needed to avoid interfering with authors who seek patents on patentable discoveries.
* Entry on rights retention
** what rights exactly
** what addendum or addenda
** what happens when author wants to publish in a journal that doesn't allow OA on those terms (no waivers)
* Entry on sanctions for non-compliance
* Entry on relevant differences (if any) between public and private funding agencies

Latest revision as of 12:13, 18 September 2012