deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 29168cd..d4123b5 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
OA policies implementing Open-Access-by-default show to be effective even when accompanied by an opt-out option: \textit{“[T]he experience at every school with a waiver option is that the waiver rate is low. At both Harvard and MIT it’s below 5 percent”}, state Shieber and Suber (SUBER-SHIEBER, p. 13). Even the recommendations formulated for the ten years from the Budapest Open Access Initiative – whose motto, by the way, significantly was \textit{“setting the default to open”} (10BOAI) – left to policy-makers the choice between granting or not an OA waiver to faculty (10BOAI, Recommendation 1.1: “\textit{[...] When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. [...] 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 \textit{this grant of rights for any given publication)”} (emphasis added).), as if it did not weigh on the goals of the Initiative. Again, a recent research enumerated the elements of Open Access policies mainly correlated with policy effectiveness (Swan A, 2015): “Open Access cannot be waived” was not present.  On the other hand, the European Commission – in drawing up the OA regime to be adopted in Horizon2020 – has shown to be not so favourable to according an OA waiver: the Guidelines (H2020 Guidelines) do not mention it; the General Model Grant Agreement (H2020 GMGA) seems to be a little more supporting, but only through really specific exceptions not related to an author's indepenent decision – \textit{“the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations in Article 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39”} (GMGA, art 29.1) –, and through very generic statements about author's will, like \textit{“}Unless it goes against their legitimate interests\textit{, each beneficiary must — as soon as possible — ‘disseminate’ its results by disclosing them to the public”} (GMGA, art 29.1 (emphasis added)).   Anyway, note that the negative correlation between “Open Access cannot be waived” element and deposit rate has been stated (Report on policy.recording, p. 9). In fact, omitting a waiver option – making by consequence an author unable to publish with the journals of her choice (SHIEBER-SUBER, p. 13) when they implement publishing rules inconsistent with the OA policy applied by the university – may push faculty to avoid deposit. deposit: \textit{“If authors have to worry about rights when making the decision whether to deposit in the first place, the cognitive load may well lead them to just not deposit”} (THE IMPORTANCE OF DARK DEPOSIT).  As OA policy provisions requiring deposit – though strongly recommended for their effectiveness in promoting OA (\textit{infra}, §) – are not easy to materially enforce with regard to restive faculty (\textit{infra}, §), clauses discouraging deposit should be avoided. Open-Access-by-default can therefore be partitioned in waivable OA and mandatory OA. Pay attention: sometimes a policy is described as “mandatory” or as a “mandate” even when it envisage an opt-out option. It may happen for two main reasons: i. the “mandatory” character actually refers to deposit, not to OA making (cf., e.g., SWAN); ii. as OA is set as the default, it is “mandatory” until the single faculty engage in active conduct to obtain waiver for a specific contribution (cf. PRIEST, p. 397).  OA policies following the Open-Access-by-default scheme may be distinguished also under another point of view, related to “rights holding”. Here, the discrimination point can be identified in \textit{who} – according to the policy – holds rights on future contributions in order to make them Open Access: the policy may in fact directly grant the university non-exclusive rights to make future contributions by faculty OA; as an alternative, it may require faculty to retain certain rights when they publish (Shieber and Suber, pp. 8-9).