deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 5503534..5f50ce7 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
\textit{aperto della versione del Contributo consentita dall'editore"}.). However, the policy does not make reference to any (non-exclusive) license, and least of all to any license or right directly conferred through the policy to the institution. From the sole examination of the text of the policy, it is therefore not easy to discern the regime actually applied. However, the policy-maker confirmed that faculty have to sign a non-exclusive license while depositing a contribution: it is that successive license which confers rights to the institution.  Some doubts could at first sight have arisen also with regard to the University of Ferrara, as its policy states that the author “grants” (and not “must grant”) a non-exclusive license to the institution (\textit{“[L'Autore] concede all’Università la licenza non esclusiva [...]”}): according to Suber and Shieber, such expression should in fact be used by institutions in order to obtain rights directly through the policy \cite{shieber2013good}. This is certainly a good advice, but it is not per se sufficient in ensuring a license conferred through the policy. For example, in the case of University of Ferrara, it can be clearly understood that the license is a following act, to be accomplished by the faculty after having negotiated with the publisher (\textit{“}Nel caso in cui l’Autore disponga \textit{dei diritti che permettano l’Accesso aperto, concede all’Università la licenza non esclusiva”} (emphasis added); \textit{“A seguito della concessione della licenza, l’Università è autorizzata a pubblicare ad Accesso aperto il Contributo licenziato”}).  Let's by the way underline that the ROARMAP field “Rights holding” cannot help in clarifying the doubts which could emerge with regard to who, according to the policy, has the rights to make the contribution OA: in fact – given the absence of official more extensive indications about how to interpret each field (\textit{infra}, §) –, answer “Author retains key rights” is generally chosen by policy-makers every time the policy makes reference to a “non-exclusive license” as “non-exclusive” means that the author is not deprived of her copyright on the contribution. See for example the OA policy by the Politecnico di Milano, which explains that “non-exclusive license” means that “the author maintains complete control of copyright and can then transfer it to a publisher if required” (\textit{“Per Licenza non esclusiva: si intende che l'autore mantiene il completo controllo del copyright e può quindi trasferirlo a un editore se richiesto.”}). A more specific definition of what are considered – according to the ROARMAP analysis – as “key rights” would certainly help.  The missed adoption of OA policies directly granting rights to the policy-maker should not surprise. The CRUI Guidelines underlined how the decision of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences to apply such a scheme has generally raised astonishment \cite{crui2009}. Moreover, applying such a regime would require to face the issue concerning the relationship between a previous non-exclusive license conferred to the institution and a following inconsistent (exclusive) license conferred to a publisher: could the author be sued by the latter for breach of contract if her contribution is made Open Access? (cf. Suber-Shieber \cite{shieber2013good},  p. 23) Thirdly, for what concerns OA waiver, it is difficult to bring Italian situation to the waivable vs. mandatory scheme depicted above. In fact, of the seven OA-by-default policies, all allow to waive Open Access when the publisher doesn't permit to make the Article OA and when other specific circumstances oppose OA (e.g., security, privacy, patentability). However, none of them allows faculty to waive OA on the basis of their own mere will, not justified by a (specific) reason (Not even the Politecnico di Milano and the University of Torino – whose ROARMAP analysis's answer to field “Can author waive giving permission to make the article OA” nevertheless was “Yes”. In fact, an OA waiver derived from faculty's own decision was acceptable only if specific circumstances applied. \textit{“Nel caso in cui l’autore faccia espressa rinuncia di pubblicazione e le motivazioni rientrino tra quelle consentite in caso di finanziamento pubblico, il contributo resterà ad 'accesso chiuso'”}, said Politecnico's policy. \textit{“Si può derogare alla previsione di cui al punto b) [inserire la copia digitale del prodotto per la diffusione ad accesso aperto] in caso di: […] rifiuto documentato di uno dei coautori o del curatore del volume; [...] sostanziale differenza tra la versione consentita dall'editore per la diffusione ad accesso aperto e quella definitiva [...]”}, said Torino's policy.).  Therefore, we cannot talk about an “OA waiver” in the acceptation used, for example, by Suber and Shieber, who – as we mentioned above – recommended it: \textit{“Faculty needn’t meet a burden of proof or offer a justification which might be accepted or rejected”} \cite{shieber2013good}. 
...
Luckily, the majority (nine) of the examined policies explicitly state that metadata are always OA from the moment of deposit. On the contrary, Universities of Bergamo, of Padova, of Trento, of Trieste, and of Udine do not specify that: therefore, from the plain text of this second group of policies it is not understandable whether metadata are immediately put OA, or rather they are unnecessarily submitted to the same procedures established for the deposited full texts.  As a final remark on the “deposit” matter, we should mention also the issue concerning the contribution version to be deposited.  Deposit of post-print versions (final peer-reviewed or published version) are strongly recommended (e.g.: (E.g.:  \cite{frankelopening}, p. 15; \cite{gmga2015}, art. 29.2; \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5; Suber-shieber, \cite{shieber2013good},  p. 12). In fact, dissemination in OA of pre-print (i.e., not peer-reviewed) versions foments the belief that OA materials are of inferior quality, and therefore not reliable (cf., e.g., TEXT MINING OF SUBJECT: \textit{“in institutional repositories it is not always obvious what you will get back whereas searches in PubMed Central will only return peer-reviewed literature”}). Post-print can be distinguished in i. final peer-reviewed version and ii. published version. Generally speaking, we can state that they are both good. However, we consider important to underline that the European Commission’s Guidelines on OA in H2020 recommend to \textit{deposit the published version where possible [\cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5: “Where possible, the version deposited should be identical to the published version (in layout, pagination, etc.)”}. The GMGA per se does not manifest any preference (cf. \cite{gmga2015} art. 29.2).]. On the contrary, Suber and Shieber suggest to always deposit \textit{“the final version of the author’s peer-reviewed manuscript”} \cite{shieber2013good}, and to add to it – where publisher consents – also the published version \cite{shieber2013good}; they recommend however to not replace the former with the latter, but to store both, unless \textit{“the published version allows at least as many reuse rights as the author’s manuscript”} \cite{shieber2013good}.   Obviously, post-print version should be required only with regard to those types of contributions which actually are submitted to peer-review (essentially, journal articles). Deposit of other content types which are per se not peer-reviewed should not be discouraged (cf, e.g., \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5, which mention monographs, books, conference proceedings and grey literature; SUBER, \cite{suber2008open},  which mentions ETDs). However, in order to not threaten the trustworthiness of repositories (and of OA in general), the contribution type must be clearly noticeable and, if possible, repositories should confer users the possibility to filter contributions according to their being peer-reviewed or not (it might be useful, e.g., for purposes of text mining: cf. TEXT MINING OF SUBJECT).  One of the policy-makers we interviewed especially manifested her sorrow for the decrease in the deposit of such “grey literature” following to the shift from the previous institutional repository to IRIS (Institutional Research Information System): in her opinion, faculty perceive this System as much more visible and “official”, and therefore they refrain from deposit contributions other than journal articles. On the one hand, this faculty's reverence for the locus of deposit of their works for the purposes of OA may be useful in fostering a better quality of OA itself; on the other hand, it may deprive the Open Access patrimony of many worthy contributions.