deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 2fec37f..6b3505b 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
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\footnote{E.g.: \cite{frankelopening}, p. 15; \cite{gmga2015}, art. 29.2; \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5; \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 In fact, dissemination in OA of pre-print (i.e., not peer-reviewed) versions foments the belief that OA materials are of inferior quality, and therefore not reliable\footnote{Cf., e.g., TEXT MINING OF SUBJECT: \textit{“in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 possible}  \footnote{\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\footnote{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 Deposit of other content types which are per se not peer-reviewed should not be discouraged\footnote{Cf., e.g., \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5, which mention monographs, books, conference proceedings and grey literature; \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\footnote{Cf. \cite{textmining2006}.}.  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 \footnote{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.