deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 93c29cb..aca1a29 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
Inconsistencies between policy and practice, and similarly policy vagueness, may be ascribed – in our opinion, and on the basis of the dialogue entertained with the policy-makers of the Italian Universities examined – to two main causes: i. enforcement issues; ii. caution in introducing Open Access.  \textbf{Enforcement issues.} Several of the policy-makers we talked to (Politecnico di Milano's, Universities on Ferrara's, of Trieste's, of Venezia Ca' Foscaris') underlined how the obligations imposed to faculty by the OA policy were difficult to enforce. Essentially, it is not possible to materially compel a restive faculty to deposit; as a consequence, many behaviours originally required by the text of the policy have evolved in practice into simple recommendations.  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”) (SWAN, 2015): 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 (Pisain particularly  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, 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.