deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index e74b109..36c8c05 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
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 (EC, Towards better access, (\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”}.), 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} 
...
Dealing with “content types” at the end of previous sub-section, we specifically left apart research data: as they deserve particular attention, we reserve to them this separated sub-section.  Research data – i.e., data supporting research results (research results which are generally embodied in journal articles or in the other content types we referred to supra, §) – were included by the Berlin Declaration in the \textit{“Definition of Open Access contributions”} – \textit{“Open Access contributions include original scientific research results, }raw data\textit{ [...]”} \footnote{\cite{berlin2003}; emphasis added.} –, and therefore the OA regime depicted by the Declaration should have applied to them too.   From its point of view, the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” is less ambitious, as it does not require deposit of datasets, but anyway it recommends university policies to welcome repository deposit of them [Recommendation 1.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}: \textit{“When possible, university policies […] should welcome repository deposits even when not required (e.g. datasets […]).”}].  The OA policy recommended by the European Commission includes Open Access to research data: its Communication “Towards better access to scientific information” denounces how the publishing of such a resource has been neglected until that moment by the scientific research community [EC Communication Towards better access, [\cite{communication2012},  p. 5: \textit{“Until now, scientific research results have been disseminated essentially by publishing articles. There is no well-established practice of publishing the underlying data.”}], and – on that same date – its “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information” consecrates its entire § 3 to \textit{“Open Access to research data”} \cite{recommendation2012}. In spite of this, art. 4 of the Italian “Decreto-legge 8 agosto 2013, n. 91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2012, n. 112” – which transposed the EC Recommendation – does not mention research data: it only refers to “articles”. However, as Guibault correctly underlined, \textit{“[t]he European Open Access Policy is not binding on the Member States, who are free to adopt the policy that best suits the needs of their own scientific community”} (GUIBAULT, Chapter 7, p. 400).  Nonetheless, European Open Access policy becomes binding in the context of Horizon2020: signing the General Model Grant Agreement \cite{gmga2015}, beneficiaries undergo the OA regime set by its article 29. And this article requires the deposit of \textit{“the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications”} \cite{gmga2015}: for example, \textit{“statistics, results of experiments, measurements, observations resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview recordings and images”} \cite{guidelines2016}. However, it must be underlined that this requirement is merely an obligation of means, and not an absolute obligation: in fact, the beneficiary \textit{“must aim to”} deposit the research data \footnote{\cite{gmga2015}, art. 29.2; \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5. This is confirmed by another sentence of the Guidelines, p. 5: \textit{“after depositing publications and, }where possible\textit{, underlying data [...]”} (emphasis added).}. Moreover, the OA making of research data is simply recommended, not required \footnote{\cite{guidelines2016}, p. 5: \textit{“Beneficiaries are also invited to grant open access to this data, but there is no obligation to do so”}.} \footnote{By the way, this different OA regime applied to research data – in fact, deposit of scientific publications is on the contrary built as an absolute obligation, and their OA making is required – shows the inadequacy of ROARMAP's scheme of analysis under this point of view, as it merely refers to “Deposit of item” and “Making deposited item Open Access”, without distinguishing between the item “research data” and the item “scientific publications”.}.  We can therefore notice a certain discrepancy between the above-mentioned Recommendation by the European Commission \cite{recommendation2012}, and the OA policy established by the same EU institution in the context of Horizon2020: in fact, the former asks Member States to \textit{“}[e]nsure that\textit{, as a result of these policies: research data that result from publicly funded research }become publicly accessible\textit{”} \footnote{\cite{recommendation2012}, § 3; emphasis added. Exceptions are however contemplated: \textit{“Concerns in particular in relation to privacy, trade secrets, national security, legitimate commercial interests and to intellectual property rights shall be duly taken into account"}.}. The regime established in the context of H2020 is thus less compelling than the one generally recommended to Member States. However, this discrepancy in the regime does not extend to the underlying orientation: indeed, an H2020 feature is its “Open Research Data Pilot” \footnote{Cf. \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 7.}, and the General Model Grant Agreement includes an optional article (29.3) – i.e., an article beneficiaries may refrain from agreeing with while signing (except for, obviously, those beneficiaries leading projects covered by the scope of the Pilot) – requiring OA to research data. We can therefore notice that “required open access to research data” is still under assessment in the context of H2020; and this explains why its general regime for the moment simply recommends OA to research data. After all, the public consultation on Science 2.0 conducted by the European Commission in 2014 showed how some industry groups were against policy intervention in this area, one of them saying that \textit{“open access to data can discourage industry participation in research”} [Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0, p. 15, note 24]: a little of caution in introducing it is hence advisable; and Member States – in applying the EC's recommendation mentioned above (i.e., ensuring through OA policies public access to research data [\cite{recommendation2012}, § 3]) – should follow a line of action just as thought-out. 
...
\textbf{5. 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 \cite{shieber2013good}. 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 (cf., e.g., \cite{priest2011copyright}, p. 392; \cite{puttingdown2016}, p. 5; \cite{haspelmath2013open}): 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”} \footnote{Towards better access, \footnote{\cite{communication2012},  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, \cite{communication2012},  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., \cite{priest2011copyright}, p. 392; \cite{puttingdown2016}, 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 [\cite{guidelines2016}, 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} [\cite{guidelines2016}, 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 are not so explicit, or they do not even come into such details, and it is probably for that reason that deposit in OA repositories is generally perceived as an alternative to gold OA. However, if we look attentively to the Berlin Declaration, we can notice that it qualifies deposit in a repository as one of the two conditions contributions must satisfy in order to realize Open Access, and it specifies that such a repository must be \textit{“supported and maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well established organization”} \cite{berlin2003}: publication with an OA journal is hence not sufficient to satisfy this condition. Suber and Shieber too – 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\textit{ green OA (deposit in OA repositories) }may also encourage \textit{gold OA (publishing in OA journals)”} (emphasis added) \cite{shieber2013good}.   It is in fact completely reasonable to require deposit in OA repositories also when the Gold Road is undertaken: this deposit can be helpful – as already said – in ensuring long-time preservation of the article, and it can facilitate search indexing and discovery.