deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 3b6a481..11fabcb 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
Secondly, none of the examined Italian policies applying OA-by-default – directly grant the university non-exclusive rights to make future contributions by faculty OA.  Some doubts might have arisen with regard to the University of Bergamo, as its policy states contributions are made Open Access after notice to the author, and not after author's authorization\footnote{\textit{“Al termine della verifica, lo Staff procede, previa notifica all'Autore, alla pubblicazione ad Accesso 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\footnote{\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\footnote{\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 \footnote{\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.”}). 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?\footnote{Cf. \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 does not 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 \footnote{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.). 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}.  However, such “restricted” waiver applied by Italian policies would perfectly fit one of the two interpretations – i.e., recommendation of policies imposing OA each time faculty own the rights needed in order to do so – proposed above of the ambiguous excerpt of Recommendation 1.1 of the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” (\textit{supra}, …) . 
...
\textbf{2. Policy v. Practice}  In analysing Italian Universities' OA policies, we sometimes noticed a discrepancy between what the policy states and how it is traduced into practice.  Just to make an example, even if the University of Milano's OA policy explicitly requires Open Access (\textit{“[L'Autore] \footnote{\textit{“[L'Autore]  è tenuto a concedere all’Università la licenza non esclusiva, gratuita, irrevocabile e universale a pubblicare ad Accesso gratuito il proprio Contributo sull’Archivio istituzionale”}), istituzionale”}.},  the policy-maker confirmed to us that, in practice, Open Access is only recommended to faculty. That means that our previous affirmation that University of Milano applies an OA-by-default regime (\textit{supra}, §) is true only on paper. Sometimes, the very same text of the policy is ambiguous, leaving open different paths for implementation.  This already showed through the previous subsection: a couple of times we mentioned that silence of the policy on deposit waiver has been interpreted in practice as allowing it. And this despite the logical consideration that – if something (here, the deposit of the contribution) is required, and no exception is mentioned – the obligation should be considered as unavoidable (consideration supported by the fact that, in an equal and opposite way, other institutions – like, e.g., the Universities of Bergamo and of Trieste – have interpreted the same silence of their policies as excluding waiver).  Policy vagueness can be observed not only for what concerns deposit waiver. For example, regarding “Journal article version to be deposited”, some policies – e.g. those of Universities of Pisa and of Torino – mention the \textit{“versione editoriale consentita”} (literally: the published version allowed): at first sight, such expression seems to refer to the published edition, or, at least, to a post-print version; actually, however, it refers to any “version allowed by the publisher” (a really different concept), thus even to pre-print. Again, for what concerns “Making deposited item Open Access”, it is often used the expression “the University asks the Author the grant of a non exclusive license” (\textit{“l’Università \footnote{\textit{“[L]’Università  chiede all'Autore la concessione a sé medesima di una licenza non esclusiva”}): esclusiva”}.}:  ambiguity of the term “ask” is demonstrated by the fact that University of Padova interprets the clause as requiring OA, while Universities of Trento and of Udine state it only requests or recommends OA. Inconsistencies between policy and practice, and similarly policy vagueness, may be ascribed – in our opinion, and on the basis of the dialogue entertained with the policy-makers of the Italian Universities examined – to two main causes: i. enforcement issues; ii. caution in introducing Open Access. 
...
It is probably for that reason that – generally speaking – the most effective OA policies have revealed to be those setting deposit as a precondition for research evaluation (the so-called “Liège/HEFCE Model”) \cite{swan2015sept}: even if not identifiable as a compulsory tool, it is anyway a persuasive one, at least for what concerns deposit. It should therefore be underlined with satisfaction that nine of the fourteen Italian policies examined have adopted the Liège Model (even if the University of Trieste still has to implement the it); moreover, policies of other three Universities – Ferrara, Milano, and Pisa – mention the Liège Model as a goal to achieve in the near future (Pisa is going to adopt it shortly).  \textbf{Caution in introducing Open Access.} Besides enforcement issues, another reason for the application of a less restrictive regime of the one the policy would impose or at least allow can be found in more cultural, social, and psychological considerations.  Open Access policies not only disrupt – at least partially – the dynamics of traditional academic research publishing, but they also touch to the delicate matter of intellectual property (IP) rights: copyright and other IP rights boast a centenary tradition, generally supported by an ideology which puts the author at the centre and makes her able to do what she wants with its works. On the contrary, the idea of “open”, of “commons”, of “sharing”, has started to flow only in the new millennium. OA policies undoubtedly realise an interference in the relationship between the author and her own work: and even if OA policies set a regime which allows faculty to let publishers' intention prevail – and therefore to publish wherever they want –, and even if they do not deprive authors of their rights – as licenses always are non-exclusive – and in any case they do not impair authors' other freedoms and interests (\cite{communication2012}, \footnote{\cite{communication2012},  p. 5: \textit{“Open access policies do not affect the author’s freedom to choose whether to publish or not. Nor do they interfere with patenting or other forms of commercial exploitation. The decision regarding whether to patent and commercially exploit research results is typically taken before publication. Open access to journal articles comes into play only if and when a researcher decides to publish”}.), publish”}.},  they are the outcome of a pretty new phenomenon which realises a turnaround in the ideology enveloping IP rights. As a consequence, they need to introduce their changes gradually, in order to allow faculty to take their time to accept and internalize the cultural shift. \textbf{3. Deposit unavoidability: a goal to pursue} 
...
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.: \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., \cite{textmining2006}: \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, discouraged\footnote{Cf,  e.g., \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5, which mention monographs, books, conference proceedings and grey literature; \cite{suber2008open}, which mentions ETDs). 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\footnote{It might be useful, e.g., for purposes of text mining: 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 (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. 
...
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 information”\footnote{\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).]. 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{5. Gold Road, an alternative?} 
...
University of Napoli Federico II does not expressly make reference to free and/or libre access. However, the notion of “Open Access” it provides can definitely be qualified as libre access, as it mentions also, for example, distribution and publication of the work, and realization of derivative works [\textit{“Per “Accesso aperto” si intende la pubblicazione di un Contributo della letteratura scientifica accompagnata dalla concessione, irrevocabile e universale, a titolo gratuito, a tutti gli utilizzatori,della facoltà di consultare il contributo, di distribuirlo, di trasmetterlo, mostrarlo, pubblicarlo, }  \textit{nonché della facoltà di riprodurre e distribuire i lavori da esso derivati a condizione che ne sia correttamente attribuita la paternità intellettuale”}.]. Therefore, libre access is required.  University of Padova specifies that libre access is required when the author have the necessary rights to establish libre access: therefore, we can state that libre access is required (given that also the other policies requiring libre access obviously do not require it when the author does not dispose of the necessary rights).  Finally, University of Torino's policy considers free access as sufficient for OA purposes, but admits libre access too, in the form of a Creative Commons license [\textit{“[I]l \footnote{\textit{“[I]l  ricercatore autorizza l'Università di Torino a metterla a disposizione del pubblico secondo modalità ad accesso aperto, senza finalità di lucro. È facoltà del ricercatore disporre che la copia digitale di cui all’art. 4 comma 1 lett. b) sia messa a disposizione del pubblico accompagnata da una licenza Creative Commons”}.]. Commons”}.}.  To sum-up, Universities of Bergamo, of Milano, and of Torino consider free access as sufficient for OA purposes. Of these three institutions: only University of Bergamo specifies in its policy that “free access” includes not only online access to the contribution, but also download and print of it; only University of Bergamo and of Torino also encourage libre access; and, finally, only University of Torino makes reference to Creative Commons licenses (but without emphasizing the CC-BY version).  About the Universities requiring libre access, we must underline that none of them mentions CC licenses. Politecnico di Milano employs them, but this is not directly mentioned in the policy, and moreover only the CC-BY-NC version is used.