deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index d31de35..9ac8f38 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
The \textit{“iron law of default inertia”} (Giglia and Morando) has a power which should not be underestimated (SHIEBER-SUBER, p. 14). It is for that reason that policies implementing an Open-Access-by-default regime are strongly recommended (SUBER-SHIEBER; FRANKEL; SWAN; EU Guidelines on OA, p. 4)  Please note, as a preliminary remark, that for an Open-Access-by-default scheme to be fruitful, a particular regime is required also for what concerns the deposit which precedes the Open Access. However, as we are going to deal with deposit \textit{infra} (§ …), we do not touch to that theme by now, taking for granted that the effective OA scheme we are depicting implies the deposit regime we are going to describe later.  OA policies implementing Open-Access-by-default show to be effective even when accompanied by an opt-out option: \textit{“[T]he experience at every school with a waiver option is that the waiver rate is low. At both Harvard and MIT it’s below 5 %”}, percent”},  state Shieber and Suber (SUBER-SHIEBER, p. 13). Even the recommendations formulated for the ten years from the Budapest Open Access Initiative – whose motto, by the way, significantly was \textit{“setting the default to open”} (10BOAI) – left to policy-makers the choice between granting or not an OA waiver to faculty (10BOAI, Recommendation 1.1: “\textit{[...] When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. [...] Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (}with or without the option for faculty to waive \textit{this grant of rights for any given publication)”} (emphasis added).), as if it did not weigh on the goals of the Initiative. Again, a recent research enumerated the elements of Open Access policies mainly correlated with policy effectiveness (Swan A, 2015): “Open Access cannot be waived” was not present. On the other hand, the European Commission – in drawing up the OA regime to be adopted in Horizon2020 – has shown to be not so favourable to according an OA waiver: the Guidelines (H2020 Guidelines) do not mention it; the General Model Grant Agreement (H2020 GMGA) seems to be a little more supporting, but only through really specific exceptions not related to an author's indepenent decision – \textit{“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”} (GMGA, art 29.1) –, and through very generic statements about author's will, like \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”} (GMGA, art 29.1 (emphasis added)).   Anyway, note that the negative correlation between “Open Access cannot be waived” element and deposit rate has been stated (Report on policy.recording, p. 9). In fact, omitting a waiver option – making by consequence an author unable to publish with the journals of her choice (SHIEBER-SUBER, p. 13) when they implement publishing rules inconsistent with the OA policy applied by the university – may push faculty to avoid deposit. As OA policy provisions requiring deposit – though strongly recommended for their effectiveness in promoting OA (\textit{infra}, §) – are not easy to materially enforce with regard to restive faculty (\textit{infra}, §), clauses discouraging deposit should be avoided.  Open-Access-by-default can therefore be partitioned in waivable OA and mandatory OA. Pay attention: sometimes a policy is described as “mandatory” or as a “mandate” even when it envisage an opt-out option. It may happen for two main reasons: i. the “mandatory” character actually refers to deposit, not to OA making (cf., e.g., SWAN); ii. as OA is set as the default, it is “mandatory” until the single faculty engage in active conduct to obtain waiver for a specific contribution (cf. PRIEST, p. 397). 
...
OA policies following the Open-Access-by-default scheme may be distinguished also under another point of view, related to “rights holding”. Here, the discrimination point can be identified in \textit{who} – according to the policy – holds rights on future contributions in order to make them Open Access: the policy may in fact directly grant the university non-exclusive rights to make future contributions by faculty OA; as an alternative, it may require faculty to retain certain rights when they publish (Shieber and Suber, pp. 8-9).  Please note that, when analysing an OA policy under this point of view, also the \textit{time} factor must be taken into consideration. In fact, OA policies usually make a reference to a (non-exclusive) license granted by the faculty to the institution; however, such a license is most of the time not provided directly by the OA policy: instead, the faculty is required to expressly provide it in the future, with regard to each single contribution she would have written. In that case – given that the mentioned non-exclusive license to the benefit of the policy-maker is required, and not implied – the faculty holds rights on future contributions.  The already mentioned extract of Recommendation 1.1 of the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” recommends to follow the first path: the policy should by itself grant a non-exclusive license to the institution to make future articles Open Access. The alternative option would in fact leave the burden of negotiation with publishers in the hands of faculty, \textit{“mak[ing] access uneven”} (Shieber and Suber p. 8-9).  Here, again, the position adopted by the European Commission in its Guidelines on OA (H2020 Guidelines) is not clear. In fact, even if they state that “after \textit{“}after  depositing publications […], \textit{[…],  beneficiaries must ensure open access” access”}  (Guidelines, p. 6, emphasis added), those “beneficiaries” \textit{“beneficiaries”}  are usually the institutions – not the single authors –; that means that an institution could have already acquired from the faculty – even ex ante, \textit{ex ante},  once and for all, with a general OA policy – those rights needed in order to ensure OA, and then use those rights only after the deposit of publications. We can hence hazard to state that the European Commission is indifferent to the adoption of either of the “rights holding” alternatives. As we are going to deepen below (infra, (\textit{infra},  §) mandatory non-waivable deposit is a feature required for OA-by-default policies in order to be effective; but the very same deposit mandate – even if not accompanied by an OA mandate (waivable or not) – has per se the power of fostering Open Access: it is not for nothing that Suber and Shieber recommend this path in those cases where policy granting non-exclusive rights to institution is an unattainable solution (Suber-shieber p. 9). From its point of view, the already mentioned Recommendation 1.1 promotes – as an alternative to non-exclusive license directly conferred by OA policy – an OA policy “ requir[ing] \textit{“requir[ing]  dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained” obtained”}  (BOAI10). Even if the two above-mentioned authors imply that the obtaining of OA permission should be attributed to the institution – “the \textit{“the  deposit will be “dark” (non-OA) until the institution can obtain permission to make it OA” OA”}  (Suber-shieber p. 9) – the plain text of the Recommendation is not so univocal: it might rather refer to the author and to permission accorded to her by the publisher, also given that it is preceded by: “When \textit{“When  publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend [...]”. [...]”}.  It is therefore unclear whether the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” is recommending policies imposing OA each time faculty own the rights needed in order to do so, or whether it is allowing policies requiring deposit but simply encouraging OA. Anyhow, it can be affirmed that mandatory-deposit policies are considered an option almost as good as Open-Access-by-default ones.  Concluded this deepened foreword about what practices are generally mainly recommended in OA policies' world, let's now examine the Italian situation. 
...
First of all, OA-by-default is applied by 7,5 of the fourteen policies examined (the University of Firenze in fact require OA only with regard to contributions publicly founded).  Secondly, none of the examined Italian policies applying OA-by-default – seem to directly grant the university non-exclusive rights to make future contributions by faculty OA.  We used the expression “seem to” as some doubts might arise 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 (“Al (\textit{“Al  termine della verifica, lo Staff procede, previa notifica all'Autore, alla pubblicazione ad Accesso aperto della versione del Contributo consentita dall'editore”.). 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. 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 (“[L'Autore] (\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 (Suber-Shieber, p. 10). 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 uderstood understood  that the license is a following act, to be accoplished accomplished  by the faculty after having negotiated with the publisher (“Nel (\textit{“}Nel  caso in cui l’Autore disponga dei \textit{dei  diritti che permettano l’Accesso aperto, concede  all’Università concede}  \textit{all’Università  la licenza non esclusiva” esclusiva”}  (emphasis added); “A \textit{“A  seguito della concessione della licenza, l’Università è autorizzata a pubblicare ad Accesso aperto il Contributo licenziato”). licenziato”}).  Leaving apart University of Bergamo's ambiguous case, 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 (CRUI Linee guida, p. 24). 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. Suber-Shieber p. 23)  Thirdly, for what concerns OA waiver, it is difficult to bring Italian situation to the waivable vs. mandatory scheme depicted above.