deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 36c8c05..381f631 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 \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 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. \footnote{Cf.  \cite{shieber2013good}, p. 23) 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 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 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}.  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}, …) . 
...
It is not for nothing that such a deposit regime is the one generally recommended to policy-makers by the most relevant sources.  For the Berlin Declaration, deposit is one of the two conditions a contribution must respect in order to satisfy Open Access: \textit{“Open Access contributions must satisfy two conditions: […] 2. A complete version of the work […] is deposited […] in at least one online repository”} \cite{berlin2003}.  The “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” states: \textit{“All university and funder OA policies should require deposit in a suitable OA repository between the date of acceptance and the date of publication”} (Recommendation 1.4 \cite{budapest2012ten}).  The European Commission, in its "Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information" \cite{recommendation2012}, does not go into details for what concerns the regime OA policies should apply (cf. \footnote{Cf.  in particular the section regarding “Open access to scientific publications”, §1), § 1.},  and therefore it does not mention what deposit scheme should be adopted. However, an indirect indication of the path Member States should follow – for what concerns deposit – in \textit{“[d]efin[ing] clear policies for the dissemination of and open access to scientific publications”} (\cite{recommendation2012}, §1) \footnote{\cite{recommendation2012}, § 1.}  can be traced in Recital 11: \textit{“Preservation of scientific research results is in the public interest”}. Moreover, in the context of Horizon2020, the European Commission requires deposit (\cite{gmga2015}, \footnote{\cite{gmga2015},  art. 29.2: \textit{“[Each beneficiary] must: (a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications”}), publications”}.},  which cannot be waived \footnote{In fact, the exceptions admitted by artt. 29.1 – \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”} (emphasis added) – and 29.2 – \textit{“This does not change 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, all of which still apply”} – of the General Model Grant Agreement only apply to \textit{“dissemination”} (i.e. to OA), not to deposit.}. The European Commission, in its Guidelines on OA in Horizon 2020, moreover emphasizes that deposit must take place independently from the route the contribution will undertake for what concerns Open Access in the strict sense: \textit{“This step applies even where open access publishing ('gold' open access) is chosen to ensure that the article is preserved in the long term”} \cite{guidelines2016}. The “Decreto-legge 8 agosto 2013, n. 91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2012, n. 112”, art. 4, which has transposed the above-mentioned "Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information" \cite{recommendation2012} in the Italian judicial system, do not mention – precisely like the corresponding European text – the deposit regime to be adopted, but leaves to Italian public institutions the task to autonomously adopt the measures needed to promote Open Access (art. 4, comma 2: \textit{“I soggetti pubblici preposti all'erogazione o alla gestione dei finanziamenti della ricerca scientifica adottano, nella loro autonomia, le misure necessarie per la promozione dell'accesso aperto [...]”}). Therefore, given that a mandatory and non-waivable deposit actively contributes to OA policy effectiveness \cite{swan2015sept} \cite{shieber2013good}, such measures should include this particular regime for deposit.  If deposit is not waivable, that obviously means that there will be cases of “dark deposit” – i.e., of deposit of contributions which are not made OA. In fact, there can always be imagined cases of OA waiver: for example, when the policy allows it, either at faculty's discretion (we saw – \textit{supra}, § – that OA waiver is generally not opposed, and it is even recommended by some sources) or rather under particular circumstances (e.g., Italian policies always let an OA-adverse publisher triumph over them: supra, § [One may question whether the mere deposit too could succumb encountering a publisher opposing it. According to the AIB (Associazione Italiana Biblioteche), the answer should be negative, given that art. 67 of Italian law 633/1941 establishes a copyright exception for utilisation of works of authorship in the context of administrative procedures – among which we could also rank faculty evaluation –; as a consequence of this exception, any contract clause signed by the author which transfers to others rights on this type of utilisations does not apply (Osservazioni sul regolamento ANVUR). More generally, given that the mere deposit in the repository does not have independent economic significance, an author should be allowed to do it even if she transferred all her exploitation rights (GUIDELINES Parthenope, § 4). Again, the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” – as you may recall (supra, §) – recommended dark deposit, and specifically \textit{“[w]hen publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms”} (Recommendation 1 \cite{budapest2012ten}): the eventuality of a publisher opposing dark deposit (and prevailing over it) was not even taken into consideration.]); or when OA can be avoided on a legal basis (e.g., when privacy or patentability are at stake). 
...
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.: \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 (cf., \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”}). 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; \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). 
...
Regarding the first aspect, we can notice that the re-use which consists in the creation of derivative works is not always mentioned.  The Berlin Declaration of 2003 explicitly stated that a contribution, to be considered OA, must allow users to – among other things – \textit{“make and distribute derivative works”} \cite{berlin2003}.  The Budapest Declaration of 2002, on the contrary, stated that Open Access should permit to \textit{“copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose”}: one might assert that \textit{“lawful purpose”} may also include the realization of derivative works; however, some lines below the Declaration states that \textit{“the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work”} \cite{budapest2002budapest}, showing to admit – and even to recommend – Open Access policies and licences leaving in the hands of the author the choice to let users make derivative works or not. It must be noticed, however, that the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” – if on the one hand it repeats the same statement [Prologue \cite{budapest2012ten}] – on the other hand \textit{“recommend[s] CC-BY or an equivalent license”} – and not CC-BY-ND – \textit{“as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work”} [Recommendation \footnote{Recommendation  2.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}]; \cite{budapest2012ten}};  moreover, it recommends universities to \textit{“require libre OA under open licenses, }preferably CC-BY licenses or the equivalent, as a condition \textit{of their financial support”} [Recommendation \footnote{Recommendation  3.5 \cite{budapest2012ten}; emphasis added.]. added.}.  This demonstrates that – in the context of the Budapest Declaration – an Open Access allowing users to make derivative works is not per se opposed (in fact, authors are encouraged to choose a CC-BY license; and the same universities should adopt measures driving authors to embrace this type of license); what is opposed, is merely an OA policy compelling authors to allow the making of derivative works, instead of leaving to them the final choice. The orientation of the European Commission on this matter is not clear. Its “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” [\cite{recommendation2012}, Recital 5] states that \textit{“[o]pen access policies aim to [...] enable the use and reuse of scientific research results. Such policies should be implemented taking into account the challenge of intellectual property rights”}: even if policies should aim to enable “reuse”, this term is not defined, and anyway IP rights must be taken into consideration in drawing the policies. In the context of Horizon 2020, we experience similar interpretation issues: here, derivative works are not mentioned in the list of re-uses – \textit{“the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine”} \cite{guidelines2016} –; however, this list is not comprehensive, but only illustrative; moreover, authors are \textit{“encourage[d]”} – and not “compelled” – to choose CC-BY and CC0 licences \cite{guidelines2016}, just as in the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative”.  Regarding the second aspect, we can notice that the Budapest and the Berlin [cf. Also HOORN: \textit{“The first-mentioned condition [of the Berlin Declaration] can only be met if the rights holder decides that he or she wants to do two things, i.e. grant free access to end-users -which can be done in a straight-forward way - but also grant a licence to reuse the material for any responsible purpose”}.] Declarations, as well as the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative”, place on an equal footing free access and re-use: they are both required in order to realize Open Access. The same can be stated regarding the EC's “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” [\cite{recommendation2012}, Recital 5].