deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 981d549..50e974f 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
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 \cite{shieber2013good}. 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”} \cite{budapest2012ten} – left to policy-makers the choice between granting or not an OA waiver to faculty\footnote{Recommendation 1.1 \cite{budapest2012ten}: “\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 \cite{swan2015sept}: “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 \cite{guidelines2016} do not mention it; the General Model Grant Agreement \cite{gmga2015} 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”} \cite{gmga2015} –, 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”} \footnote{Art. 29.1 \cite{gmga2015}; 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, \footnote{\cite{shieber2013good},  p. 9). 9.}.  In fact, omitting a waiver option – making by consequence an author unable to publish with the journals of her choice \cite{shieber2013good} when they implement publishing rules inconsistent with the OA policy applied by the university – may push faculty to avoid deposit: \textit{“If authors have to worry about rights when making the decision whether to deposit in the first place, the cognitive load may well lead them to just not deposit”} \cite{darkdeposit}. 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., \cite{swan2015sept}); 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. \cite{priest2011copyright}, 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 \cite{shieber2013good}.