Drafting a policy - Revision history

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2025-11-23T18:24:08Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 23 November 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:
	*# <!-- 1 --> By faculty vote, the policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also includes a faculty commitment to deposit in the repository.		*# <!-- 1 --> By faculty vote, the policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also includes a faculty commitment to deposit in the repository.
	# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.		# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.
	# There are several ways to expand these policies beyond faculty to other researchers at the institution. For some examples see the section on [[Drafting_a_policy#Scope_of_coverage,_by_authors \| scope of coverage by authors]].		# There are several ways to expand these policies beyond faculty to other researchers at the institution. For some examples, see the section on [[Drafting_a_policy#Scope_of_coverage,_by_authors \| scope of coverage by authors]].
	# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].		# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].
	*# <!-- 2 --> The policy requires faculty to retain certain nonexclusive rights when they publish future research articles. Whether or not it offers authors a waiver option, it requires deposit in the repository.		*# <!-- 2 --> The policy requires faculty to retain certain nonexclusive rights when they publish future research articles. Whether or not it offers authors a waiver option, it requires deposit in the repository.

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2025-11-23T18:23:32Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 23 November 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:
	*# <!-- 1 --> By faculty vote, the policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also includes a faculty commitment to deposit in the repository.		*# <!-- 1 --> By faculty vote, the policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also includes a faculty commitment to deposit in the repository.
	# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.		# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.
			# There are several ways to expand these policies beyond faculty to other researchers at the institution. For some examples see the section on [[Drafting_a_policy#Scope_of_coverage,_by_authors \| scope of coverage by authors]].
	# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].		# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].
	*# <!-- 2 --> The policy requires faculty to retain certain nonexclusive rights when they publish future research articles. Whether or not it offers authors a waiver option, it requires deposit in the repository.		*# <!-- 2 --> The policy requires faculty to retain certain nonexclusive rights when they publish future research articles. Whether or not it offers authors a waiver option, it requires deposit in the repository.

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2025-11-23T18:19:10Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 23 November 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:

	* There are at least six types of university OA policy. Here we organize them by their methods for avoiding copyright troubles.		* There are at least six types of university OA policy. Here we organize them by their methods for avoiding copyright troubles.
	*# <!-- 1 --> ~~The~~ policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also ~~requires~~ deposit in the repository.		*# <!-- 1 --> By faculty vote, the policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also includes a faculty commitment to deposit in the repository.
	# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.		# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.
	# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].		# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2025-11-23T18:16:24Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 23 November 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:

	* There are at least six types of university OA policy. Here we organize them by their methods for avoiding copyright troubles.		* There are at least six types of university OA policy. Here we organize them by their methods for avoiding copyright troubles.
	*# <!-- 1 --> The policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also requires deposit in the repository.		*# <!-- 1 --> The policy grants the institution certain nonexclusive rights to future research articles published by faculty. This sort of "rights retention" policy typically offers authors a waiver option or opt-out from that license. It also requires deposit in the repository.
	# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.		# We recommend type #1 in this guide. Most of the good practices collected here are about that sort of policy.
	# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].		# An equally acceptable variation can be satisfied either by depositing in an OA repository or by publishing in an OA journal. We call these ''green/gold agnostic'' policies and discuss them further in the entry on [[Drafting_a_policy#Deposit_in_the_repository \| depositing in the repository]].
Line 28:		Line 28:
	# We do not recommend #2 because it requires faculty to negotiate with publishers in order to retain the needed rights. That is difficult to do. Many faculty are intimidated by the prospect and will not do it. Even if all tried it, some will succeed and some will fail. Some will get one set of rights and some will get another. That will make access uneven and multiply implementation headaches.		# We do not recommend #2 because it requires faculty to negotiate with publishers in order to retain the needed rights. That is difficult to do. Many faculty are intimidated by the prospect and will not do it. Even if all tried it, some will succeed and some will fail. Some will get one set of rights and some will get another. That will make access uneven and multiply implementation headaches.
	*# <!-- 3 --> The policy seeks no rights at all, and simply requires deposit in the repository. If the institution already has permission to make a work OA, then it makes it OA from the moment of deposit. Otherwise the deposit will be "[[Implementing_a_policy#Dark_deposits\|dark]]" (non-OA) until the institution can obtain permission to make it OA. During the period of dark deposit, at least the metadata will be OA.		*# <!-- 3 --> The policy seeks no rights at all, and simply requires deposit in the repository. If the institution already has permission to make a work OA, then it makes it OA from the moment of deposit. Otherwise the deposit will be "[[Implementing_a_policy#Dark_deposits\|dark]]" (non-OA) until the institution can obtain permission to make it OA. During the period of dark deposit, at least the metadata will be OA.
	# When type #1 policies are politically unattainable on a certain campus, then we recommend type #3. We prefer #1 to #3 because #1 provides permission to make articles OA and #3 does not.		# When type #1 policies are politically unattainable on a certain campus, then we recommend type #3. We prefer #1 to #3 because #1 provides rights retention, or permission to make articles OA, and #3 does not.
	*# <!-- 4 --> The policy seeks no rights at all and does not require dark deposits. It requires repository deposit and OA, but only when the author's publisher permits them.		*# <!-- 4 --> The policy seeks no rights at all and does not require dark deposits. It requires repository deposit and OA, but only when the author's publisher permits them.
	# We do not recommend #4 because it allows recalcitrant publishers to opt out at will. Some institutions believe that a loophole for recalcitrant publishers is the only way to avoid copyright infringement. But that is mistaken. All six approaches listed here, properly implemented, avoid copyright infringement.		# We do not recommend #4 because it allows recalcitrant publishers to opt out at will. Some institutions believe that a loophole for recalcitrant publishers is the only way to avoid copyright infringement. But that is mistaken. All six approaches listed here, properly implemented, avoid copyright infringement.

WikiSysop: /* Deposited version */

2024-09-14T18:46:53Z

Deposited version

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 14 September 2024
Line 121:		Line 121:
	** This could be mentioned in the policy itself or simply made an implementation practice.		** This could be mentioned in the policy itself or simply made an implementation practice.
	** The VOR should only replace the AAM when the VOR allows at least as many reuse rights as the AAM. Some publishers will be happy to make this substitution in order to prevent the circulation of multiple versions. However, when the VOR carries a more restrictive license than the AAM, then the VOR should be deposited alongside the AAM, and the latter should remain in the repository.		** The VOR should only replace the AAM when the VOR allows at least as many reuse rights as the AAM. Some publishers will be happy to make this substitution in order to prevent the circulation of multiple versions. However, when the VOR carries a more restrictive license than the AAM, then the VOR should be deposited alongside the AAM, and the latter should remain in the repository.
	** SHERPA RoMEO ~~keeps~~ a [http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.php?la=en list of publishers] willing to allow deposit and distribution of the VOR.		** SHERPA RoMEO formerly kept a [http://web.archive.org/web/20160123144140/http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.php?la=en list of publishers] willing to allow deposit and distribution of the VOR. It seems to have dropped it in November 2015.
			<!-- original URL = http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.php?la=en -->

	== Deposit timing ==		== Deposit timing ==

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2024-01-18T18:47:05Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 18 January 2024
Line 58:		Line 58:
	** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).		** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).		** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc, Harvard-style rights-retention open-access policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk. Periodically revised and updated.		** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc/edit?usp=sharing, Harvard-style rights-retention open-access policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk. Periodically revised and updated.

	* On our preference for type #1 and type #3 policies over the other four types, see Recommendation 1.1 from the [http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations BOAI-10 statement] (September 2012): "When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication)."		* On our preference for type #1 and type #3 policies over the other four types, see Recommendation 1.1 from the [http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations BOAI-10 statement] (September 2012): "When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication)."

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2024-01-18T18:46:09Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 18 January 2024
Line 58:		Line 58:
	** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).		** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).		** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc~~/edit~~, Harvard-style rights-retention open-access policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk.		** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc, Harvard-style rights-retention open-access policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk. Periodically revised and updated.

	* On our preference for type #1 and type #3 policies over the other four types, see Recommendation 1.1 from the [http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations BOAI-10 statement] (September 2012): "When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication)."		* On our preference for type #1 and type #3 policies over the other four types, see Recommendation 1.1 from the [http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations BOAI-10 statement] (September 2012): "When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication)."

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2024-01-18T18:44:59Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 18 January 2024
Line 58:		Line 58:
	** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).		** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).		** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc/edit, ~~Author rights under university~~ rights-retention OA policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk.		** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc/edit, Harvard-style rights-retention open-access policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk.

	* On our preference for type #1 and type #3 policies over the other four types, see Recommendation 1.1 from the [http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations BOAI-10 statement] (September 2012): "When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication)."		* On our preference for type #1 and type #3 policies over the other four types, see Recommendation 1.1 from the [http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations BOAI-10 statement] (September 2012): "When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication)."

WikiSysop: /* Mistakes in the grant of rights to the institution */

2021-05-28T16:44:44Z

Mistakes in the grant of rights to the institution

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 28 May 2021
Line 82:		Line 82:
	== Mistakes in the grant of rights to the institution ==		== Mistakes in the grant of rights to the institution ==

	* Some policies start with the [[Drafting_a_policy#Grant_of_rights_to_the_institution \| grant of rights recommended here]], but then muddy the waters with confusing or ~~even~~ inconsistent additional language.		* Some policies start with the [[Drafting_a_policy#Grant_of_rights_to_the_institution \| grant of rights recommended here]], but then muddy the waters with confusing or inconsistent additional language.

	# One mistake is to accompany the grant of rights with a provision encouraging faculty to negotiate with publishers to retain some or all of the same rights already granted to the institution. This is confusing because the grant of rights through the policy makes that kind of negotiation unnecessary, and one key purpose of a rights-retention policy is to make that kind of negotiation unnecessary. The "grant of rights clause" and the "negotiation clause" might even be inconsistent, one making negotiation unnecessary for OA, and the other implying that it's necessary. (A negotiation clause would be more justified if it aimed to insure that authors only sign contracts consistent with the policy; for more on this, see our entry on [[Implementing_a_policy#Author_addenda\|author addenda]].)		# One mistake is to accompany the grant of rights with a provision encouraging faculty to negotiate with publishers to retain some or all of the same rights already granted to the institution. This is confusing because the grant of rights through the policy makes that kind of negotiation unnecessary, and one key purpose of a rights-retention policy is to make that kind of negotiation unnecessary. The "grant of rights clause" and the "negotiation clause" might even be inconsistent, one making negotiation unnecessary for OA, and the other implying that it's necessary. (A negotiation clause would be more justified if it aimed to insure that authors only sign contracts consistent with the policy; for more on this, see our entry on [[Implementing_a_policy#Author_addenda\|author addenda]].)

WikiSysop: /* Types of policy */

2021-05-28T16:43:40Z

Types of policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 28 May 2021
Line 56:		Line 56:
	-->		-->
	* For not-so-independent analyses, see:		* For not-so-independent analyses, see:
	** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012.		** Stuart Shieber's blog post on the Eric Priest article above, [https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/09/17/is-the-harvard-open-access-policy-legally-sound/ Is the Harvard open-access policy legally sound?] ''The Occasional Pamphlet'', September 17, 2012 ([https://perma.cc/5JE3-9ZAY perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021.		** Peter Suber, [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.543/ Author rights and the Harvard open access policies: a response to Patrick Alexander], ''Insights'', April 21, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/GH7W-BA8Q perma.cc link]).
	** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc/edit, Author rights under university rights-retention OA policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk.		** Peter Suber [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPYtSrjX93sIOMMyNMgHhpUlTw-TfvuYPyY_7DI3fuc/edit, Author rights under university rights-retention OA policies], May 27, 2021. A handout for a remote talk.