deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index ec3caae..9e77633 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
Few policies expressly contemplate data: Universities of Napoli Federico II's, of Pisa's, of Torino's, and of Venezia Ca' Foscaris's. Others do not specify at all the content types they apply to, and therefore they do not even say if research data are included or not: Politecnico di Milano's; Universities of Cagliari's and of Firenze's. The residual policies explicitly define the “contributions” they apply to, not including research data: Universities of Bergamo's, of Ferrara's, of Milano's, of Padova's, of Trento's, of Trieste's, and of Udine's.  Among the four policies mentioning \textit{“data”}, the one of University of Napoli Federico II remains however unclear about including research data or not: in fact, its definition of the term “contribution” seems to take into consideration only those data accompanying the \textit{text} of a publication – and which therefore are \textit{part of the publication itself} –, and not also the data underlying it; this seems confirmed also by the list of relevant data the policy mention as an example – images, videos, tables, illustrations and formulae [\textit{“Per “Contributo della letteratura scientifica”, “Contributo” o “Opera” si intende qualsiasi testo comprensivo dei dati quali immagini, video, tabelle, disegni e formule che sia destinato al dibattito scientifico”}.]. However, the list of relevant data made is just illustrative, non thorough, and the rest of the definition of the term “contribution” is not sufficiently clear to allow a certain answer.  University of Pisa's policy causes similar incertitudes, as it mentions – again in the definition of the term “contribution” – \textit{“databases”}, but only as an example of “works of authorship realized by Authors, published or accepted for publication” [\textit{“[…] per "Contributo" le opere dell'ingegno realizzate dagli Autori, pubblicate o accettate per la pubblicazione (quali ad esempio saggi, articoli, monografie, capitoli di libro, atti di convegno, presentazioni multimediali, banche dati, edizioni critiche o scientifiche)”}.]: could we therefore include, in this definition, also those databases which are not published or accepted for publication, but which simply underlie and validate the published results? The policy-maker confirmed to us that \textit{“databases”} where included in the policy essentially thinking of data supporting the research; but the text of the policy remains ambiguous.  Hence, the sole policies undeniably contemplating research data are the ones of University of Torino and of Venezia Ca' Foscari, as they expressly state that they offer to their faculty the possibility to deposit and to make Open Access the data underlying research products, and that such a provision implements the EC's “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” [\textit{“L'università di Torino, in linea con la Raccomandazione UE del 17 luglio 2012, offre ai propri ricercatori la possibilità di depositare ad accesso aperto i set di dati che supportano i prodotti della ricerca, come richiesto da un numero crescente di riviste scientifiche. La possibilità di deposito si estende a ogni set di dati che il ricercatore riterrà opportuno rendere disponibile ad accesso aperto”} (University of Torino). \textit{“L'Università Ca' Foscari, in linea con la Raccomandazione UE del 17 luglio 2012, offre ai propri docenti la possibilità di depositare ad accesso aperto i set di dati che supportano i prodotti della ricerca. La possibilità di deposito si estende a ogni set di dati che il docente o ricercatore ritenga opportuno rendere disponibili, favorendo l'accesso aperto qualora rientri nei limiti di legge”} (University of Venezia Ca' Foscari).]. As it can be noticed, they do not require neither deposit nor OA making of research data, probably for that same will of employing caution in introducing Open Access highlighted supra (§). But they are in any case commendable: not only because they anyway implement the recommendation formulated on the matter by the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” (\textit{supra}); not only because the same European Commission showed a certain caution in introducing OA with regard to research data; but also because at least they clearly state that it is possible for faculty to deposit research data, and because they materially offer such a possibility. Sometimes, on the contrary, the institutional repositories of universities are not technically set up to host datasets and other research data linked to a specific deposited publication: this happens, for example, at University of Udine – as the pertinent policy-maker confirmed to us [However, she also stated that – in case of many requests by faculty to deposit research data – they would have changed the configuration of the system]. \textbf{6. Gold Road, an alternative?}  Following the Gold Road means publishing a contribution in an OA journal, or, anyway, with a publisher directly applying OA; following the Green Road to Open Access means depositing a contribution in an OA repository (SUBER-SHIEBER, p. 18). These are the definitions generally conferred to the two routes to Open Access. And these two paths are perceived – in people's mind – as being alternative: that means that, if you publish your article on an Open Access journal, you won't have to deposit it also on a repository, nor make it OA through it.   In the context of Horizon2020, these two Roads actually are alternative: the European Commission expresses it clearly in its Communication “Towards better access to scientific information”: \textit{“In Horizon 2020, both the ‘Green’ and ‘Gold’ models are considered valid approaches to achieve open access.[...] This can be done using the ‘Gold’ model [...],} or \textit{the ‘Green’ model”} [Towards better access, p. 9; emphasis added]). However, this happens because a different definition is given in this context to Gold and Green OA: in fact, the General Model Grant Agreement states, at art. 29.2, that \textit{“[each beneficiary] must: […] (b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest: (i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or (ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case”} [see also Towards better access, p. 9: \textit{“This can be done using the ‘Gold’ model (open access to published version is immediate), or the ‘Green’ model. In this case, the Commission will allow an embargo period [...]”}.]. The difference between the two Roads is therefore in having (Gold Road) or not (Green Road) initially chosen a publisher who directly applies OA.  “Green Road” (or “green OA”) and “self-archiving” are often used as synonyms [cf., e.g., PRIEST, p. 392; Putting down roots, p. 4. The same ROARMAP scheme of analysis uses the expression \textit{“Green self-archiving”}.]. In our opinion, these two expression should cease to be used as expressing the same concept: “Green Road” should be used to refer to the Green model as defined by the European Commission in the context of H2020; “self-archiving”, on the contrary, should be used to generally refer to the practice of depositing contributions in an OA repository. Such a differentiation is imposed by the fact that the OA policy of Horizon2020 requires: i. to deposit a copy of the published contribution in a repository for scientific publications \textit{even when the Gold Road is chosen}, in order to ensure long-term preservation [Guidelines, p. 5: \textit{“Beneficiaries must deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications. […] This step applies even where open access publishing ('gold' open access) is chosen to ensure that the article is preserved in the long term”}.]; ii. to make the contribution publicly accessible through that repository \textit{even when the Gold Road is chosen} [Guidelines, p. 6: \textit{“[T]he article must also be made accessible through a repository upon publication”}.]. If we follow the previously suggested distinction between “Green Road” and “self-archiving”, we can therefore state that – in the context of H2020 – authors can choose between Green Road and Gold Road, but – in any case – they must self-archive a copy of the contribution on a repository for scientific publications, and make the contribution publicly accessible through it.  Other major OA sources do not come into such details, and it is probably for that reason that deposit on OA repository is generally perceived as an alternative to gold OA. However, it is completely reasonable to require deposit in OA repositories also when the Gold Road is undertaken – even outside the H2020 context. In fact, this deposit can be helpful – as already said – in ensuring long-time preservation of the article, and it can facilitate search indexing and discovery. Moreover, we can notice that also Suber and Shieber – even if they do not use the terminology we recommend here (as they use “green OA” to indicate deposit in OA repositories) – actually suggest to policy-makers to add the Gold Road to self-archiving, and not to replace the latter with the former: \textit{“A university requiring green OA (deposit in OA repositories)} may also encourage \textit{gold OA (publishing in OA journals)”} [Suber-shieber, p. 18; emphasis added].  These terminological and substantial considerations let emerge, once again, the inadequacy of the ROARMAP scheme of analysis, which – dealing with the \textit{“Gold OA publishing option”} – formulate the possible answering options mentioning \textit{“Green self-archiving”}, to which Gold Road would be \textit{“alternative”}: given that the meaning attributed to \textit{“Green self-archiving”} is not explicitly stated, it is doubtful whether it refers to what we describe as “Green Road” or to what we describe as “self-archiving”. In the first case, another ROARMAP field should be added, in which it should be asked if deposit and OA making on the repository are anyway required even when the faculty undertakes the Gold Road; in the second case, the adjective \textit{“alternative”} should be replaced with \textit{“additional”}.  This explains why – filling-up the ROARMAP scheme with regard to each Italian policy examined – we chose the “Others” option for all the policies mentioning the Gold Road (i.e., all but Politecnico di Milano and University of Ferrara). In fact, they generally encourage the Gold Road – some in a more articulate way, some more superficially –, but not as an alternative to deposit on OA repository: in fact, in those cases in which deposit and Open Access are required by the policy, they are still required even when faculty publish with an OA journal [Actually, this regime does not plainly emerge from the text of the policy: it has been inferred by the fact that it is not stated that deposit requirement is excluded when the contribution is published on an OA journal; and the contacted policy-makers confirmed this interpretation.]  This is commendable – as it makes the policies (at least those which require deposit and OA) consistent under this aspect with the H2020 OA policy –, but not surprising, given that institutional repositories are generally used also for faculty evaluation purposes. Moreover – as one of the contacted policy-makers noticed – researchers who decide to publish with OA journals are usually also well-disposed and attentive to make a copy of their work publicly accessible on the institutional repository: there is therefore no need for Universities to tiptoe around in order to not frighten faculty (\textit{supra}, §), as the sole researchers interested by this clause are those who already embrace Open Access.  If on the one hand Italian policies are hence praisable for what concerns the Gold Road topic, on the other hand they are not very much incisive in fostering OA publishing: in fact, journal impact factor continues to be used as a measure of the quality of publications [This in spite of recommendation 1.5 of the “Ten years on from Budapest Open Access Initiative”, which \textit{“encourage[s] the development of alternative metrics for impact and quality which are less simplistic, more reliable, and entirely open for use and reuse”}.]; and publishing on OA journals is not taken into consideration for purposes of faculty evaluation.  Moreover, all the examined policies but the one of University of Padova [\textit{“[L]’Università si impegna a rimuovere gli ostacoli anche di ordine finanziario che impediscono la politica di open access”}.] are silent regarding funding for APCs (Article Processing Charges): this is explained by the fact that for the moment Universities cannot include such an item in their annual budget plan, because a method to calculate the amount which would be spent for APC funding has not still been established (by the way, this issue also hits University of Padova, in spite of the commitment she assumes in its policy to remove the financial obstacles impeding Open Access).  To conclude, we can state that – even if \textit{“a transition to green [open access] self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas a transition to gold [open access] publishing depends on the publishing community”} (PRIEST, p. 392) – Universities could anyway give a helping hand towards the transition to Gold OA, by making easier and more advantageous for researchers to choose it.