deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index a3bdbc3..ec3caae 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
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.  The fourteen Italian policies analysed show to generally ban pre-print versions of journal articles: only Universities of Firenze's, of Pisa's, and of Torino's admit them. University of Udine's policy does not specify anything on the matter. The other policies follow one of the following paths: i. they ask for the final peer-reviewed version (you can trace them on the Synoptic Table [Figure...]; particularly commendable is the policy of University of Bergamo, which follows Suber and Shieber's above-highlighted recommendation: in fact, it asks for the peer-reviewed version and, where possible, also for the published one [\textit{“L’Autore, al momento della pubblicazione, cura il deposito nell’Archivio istituzionale di ciascun Contributo, nella versione finale referata e, se disponibile, nella versione editoriale [...]”}.]); ii. they ask exclusively for the published version (University of Ferrara); iii. they ask for the published version where possible; otherwise the final peer-reviewed version is sufficient (Universities of Milano, of Napoli Federico II, of Padova, of Trento, of Trieste, and of Venezia Ca' Foscari).  The examined Universities tend to admit deposit of content types other than journal articles, and that must be praised. However, if the plain text of the policies normally submits them to the same regime established for journal articles [In fact, the meaning of the term “contribution” is usually defined once and for all in the “Definitions” section, and then the rest of the policy just refer to \textit{“contributions”} (see, e.g., the policy of University of Milano). This causes doubts, by the way, with regard to those policies which ask for peer-reviewed versions of contributions: which regime should apply when – for a type of contribution – peer-review is generally non envisaged? Is it just an oversight of the policy-maker, or cannot they actually be deposited? ETDs constitute an exception, as their deposit and OA making are normally \textit{expressly} required – even if often in a dedicated repository. Another exception concerns monographs, manuals and other works generally destined to be commercialized with payment of royalties to the author: they are often \textit{expressly} excluded from the OA requirement (see, e.g., the policy of University of Cagliari) or even from the deposit requirement (see, e.g., the policy of University of Bergamo).], sometimes deposit of such other content types (especially “grey literature”) becomes in the practice only recommended (e.g., at University of Trento), maybe for the reasons outlined above. \textbf{4. Research data: a neglected resource}  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{ [...]”} [BERLIN DECLARATION; 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 doesn't require deposit of datasets, but anyway it recommends university policies to welcome repository deposit of them [10BOAI, Recommendation 1.1: \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, 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”} (EC, 2012/417/EU).  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 [GMGA], 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”} [art, 29.2 GMGA]: for example, \textit{“statistics, results of experiments, measurements, observations resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview recordings and images”} [Guidelines, p. 3]. 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 [GMGA, art. 29.2; Guidelines, 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 [Guidelines, p. 5: \textit{“Beneficiaries are also invited to grant open access to this data, but there is no obligation to do so”}.]. [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 (2012/417/UE), 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{”} [2012/417/UE, § 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” [cf. Guidelines 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 [2012/417/UE, § 3]) – should follow a line of action just as thought-out.  We already said (\textit{supra}, …) that, for the moment, the Italian legislator does not have imposed neither recommended deposit of and open access to research data: research data are not even mentioned by the national provisions transposing the “Recommendation on access and preservation of scientific information”. But Italian universities, what position did they take regarding research data?  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 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).]. 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].