deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index 13b0c3d..657d5b7 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
If deposit is not waivable, that obviously means that there will be cases of “dark deposit” – i.e., of deposit of contributions which are not made OA. In fact, there can always be imagined cases of OA waiver: for example, when the policy allows it, either at faculty's discretion (we saw – \textit{supra}, § – that OA waiver is generally not opposed, and it is even recommended by some sources) or rather under particular circumstances (e.g., Italian policies always let an OA-adverse publisher triumph over them: supra, §)\footnote{One may question whether the mere deposit too could succumb encountering a publisher opposing it. According to the AIB (Associazione Italiana Biblioteche), the answer should be negative, given that art. 67 of Italian law 633/1941 establishes a copyright exception for utilisation of works of authorship in the context of administrative procedures – among which we could also rank faculty evaluation –; as a consequence of this exception, any contract clause signed by the author which transfers to others rights on this type of utilisations does not apply \cite{anvur2012}. More generally, given that the mere deposit in the repository does not have independent economic significance, an author should be allowed to do it even if she transferred all her exploitation rights \cite{parthenope}. Again, the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” – as you may recall (supra, §) – recommended dark deposit, and specifically \textit{“[w]hen publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms”} (Recommendation 1 \cite{budapest2012ten}): the eventuality of a publisher opposing dark deposit (and prevailing over it) was not even taken into consideration.}; or when OA can be avoided on a legal basis (e.g., when privacy or patentability are at stake).  Policy envisaging dark deposit are recommendable for more than a reason. First of all, if a contribution already is in the repository, this makes easier for the institution to distribute it \textit{“if and when the rights situation allows”} \cite{darkdeposit}. Secondly, faculty are more encouraged to deposit if they do not automatically associate it with making the deposited item Open Access \cite{shieber2013good}. Thirdly, \textit{“[e]very time an author deposits an article dark is a learning moment reminding the author that distribution is important”} \cite{darkdeposit}.  Moreover, deposit of non-OA materials can \textit{“facilitate search indexing and discovery”} \cite{shieber2013good}: in fact, deposit – even when dark – allows computer searches to take into consideration full texts, rather than the sole titles and abstracts \cite{darkdeposit} \cite{shieber2013good}. (For \cite{shieber2013good}\footnote{For  a different opinion, see \cite{guidelines2016}, p. 7: \textit{“The purpose of the metadata requirement is to make it easier to find publications and ensure that EU funding is acknowledged. Mining bibliographic data is more efficient than mining full text versions”}.); versions”}.};  obviously, the full texts remain by themselves not directly accessible to the user. Unfortunately, the scheme of deposit highlighted in the present subsection is only followed by a minority of the examined Italian OA policies. Without replicating here the complete picture made above of the situation of Italian universities on the matter (\textit{supra}, §), we simply remind here that only Universities of Bergamo, of Milano, of Padova, and of Trieste apply the recommended regime; Universities of Cagliari and of Trento do not specify nothing about deposit waiver; the others admit waivers (even if some only in specific cases: e.g, Politecnico di Milano, University of Turin) or even state that deposit is only recommended.