deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index c87b752..79c77a7 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
\textbf{5. Gold Road, an alternative?}  Following the Gold Road means publishing a contribution in an OA journal, or, anyway, with a publisher directly applying OA; following the Green Road to Open Access means depositing a contribution in an OA repository (SUBER-SHIEBER, p. 18). These are the definitions generally conferred to the two routes to Open Access. And these two paths are perceived – in people's mind – as being alternative: alternative (cf., e.g., PRIEST, p. 392; Putting down roots, p. 5; HASPELMATH):  that means that, if you publish your article on an Open Access journal, you won't have to deposit it also on a repository, nor make it OA through it. In the context of Horizon2020, these two Roads actually are alternative: the European Commission expresses it clearly in its Communication “Towards better access to scientific information”: “In \textit{“In  Horizon 2020, both the ‘Green’ and ‘Gold’ models are considered valid approaches to achieve open access.[...] This can be done using the ‘Gold’ model [...], or the }or \textit{the  ‘Green’ model” model”}  [Towards better access, p. 9; emphasis added]). However, this happens because a different definition is given in this context to Gold and Green OA: in fact, the General Model Grant Agreement states, at art. 29.2, that “[each \textit{“[each  beneficiary] must: […] (b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest: (i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or (ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case” case”}  [see also Towards better access, p. 9: “This \textit{“This  can be done using the ‘Gold’ model (open access to published version is immediate), or the ‘Green’ model. In this case, the Commission will allow an embargo period [...]”.]. [...]”}.].  The difference between the two Roads is therefore in having (Gold Road) or not (Green Road) initially chosen a publisher who directly applies OA. “Green Road” (or “green OA”) and “self-archiving” are often used as synonyms [cf., e.g., PRIEST, p. 392; Putting down roots, p. 4. The same ROARMAP scheme of analysis uses the expression “Green self-archiving”.]. \textit{“Green self-archiving”}.].  In our opinion, these two expression should cease to be used as expressing the same concept: “Green Road” should be used to refer to the Green model as defined by the European Commission in the context of H2020; “self-archiving”, on the contrary, should be used to generally refer to the practice of depositing contributions in an OA repository. Such a differentiation is imposed by the fact that the OA policy of Horizon2020 requires: i. to deposit a copy of the published contribution in a repository for scientific publications even \textit{even  when the Gold Road is chosen, chosen},  in order to ensure long-term preservation [Guidelines, p. 5: “Beneficiaries \textit{“Beneficiaries  must deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications. […] This step applies even where open access publishing ('gold' open access) is chosen to ensure that the article is preserved in the long term”.]; term”}.];  ii. to make the contribution publicly accessible through that repository even \textit{even  when the Gold Road is chosen chosen}  [Guidelines, p. 6: “[T]he \textit{“[T]he  article must also be made accessible through a repository upon publication”.]. publication”}.].  If we follow the previously suggested distinction between “Green Road” and “self-archiving”, we can therefore state that – in the context of H2020 – authors can choose between Green Road and Gold Road, but – in any case – they must self-archive a copy of the contribution on a repository for scientific publications, and make the contribution publicly accessible through it. Other major OA sources are not so explicit, or they  do not even  come into such details, and it is probably for that reason that deposit in OA repositories is generally perceived as an alternative to gold OA. However, if we look attentively to the Berlin Declaration, we can notice that it qualifies deposit in a repository as one of the two conditions contributions must satisfy in order to realize Open Access, and it specifies that such a repository must be “supported \textit{“supported  and maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well established organization” organization”}  [Berlin Declaration]: publication with an OA journal is hence not sufficient to satisfy this condition. Suber and Shieber too – even if they do not use the terminology we recommend here (as they use “green OA” to indicate deposit in OA repositories) – actually suggest to policy-makers to add the Gold Road to self-archiving, and not to replace the latter with the former: “A university requiring \textit{“A university} requiring\textit{  green OA (deposit in OA repositories) may }may  also encourage gold \textit{gold  OA (publishing in OA journals)” journals)”}  [Suber-shieber, p. 18; emphasis added]. It is in fact completely reasonable to require deposit in OA repositories also when the Gold Road is undertaken: this deposit can be helpful – as already said – in ensuring long-time preservation of the article, and it can facilitate search indexing and discovery.  These terminological and substantial considerations let emerge, once again, the inadequacy of the ROARMAP scheme of analysis, which – dealing with the “Gold \textit{“Gold  OA publishing option” option”}  – formulate the possible answering options mentioning “Green self-archiving”, \textit{“Green self-archiving”},  to which Gold Road would be “alternative”: \textit{“alternative”}:  given that the meaning attributed to “Green self-archiving” is not explicitly stated, it is doubtful whether it refers to what we describe as “Green Road” or to what we describe as “self-archiving”. In the first case, another ROARMAP field should be added, in which it should be asked if deposit and OA making on the repository are anyway required even when the faculty undertakes the Gold Road; in the second case, the adjective “alternative” \textit{“alternative”}  should be replaced with “additional”. \textit{“additional”}.  This explains why – filling-up the ROARMAP scheme with regard to each Italian policy examined – we chose the “Others” option for all the policies mentioning the Gold Road (i.e., all but Politecnico di Milano and University of Ferrara). In fact, they generally encourage the Gold Road – some in a more articulate way, some more superficially –, but not as an alternative to deposit on OA repository: in fact, in those cases in which deposit and Open Access are required by the policy, they are still required even when faculty publish with an OA journal [Actually, this regime does not plainly emerge from the text of the policy: it has been inferred by the fact that it is not stated that deposit requirement is excluded when the contribution is published on an OA journal; and the contacted policy-makers confirmed this interpretation.]  This is commendable – as it makes the policies (at least those which require deposit and OA) consistent under this aspect with the H2020 OA policy –, but not surprising, given that institutional repositories are generally used also for faculty evaluation purposes. Moreover – as one of the contacted policy-makers noticed – researchers who decide to publish with OA journals are usually also well-disposed and attentive to make a copy of their work publicly accessible on the institutional repository: there is therefore no need for Universities to tiptoe around in order to not frighten faculty (supra, (\textit{supra},  §), as the sole researchers interested by this clause are those who already embrace Open Access. If on the one hand Italian policies are hence praisable for what concerns the Gold Road topic, on the other hand they are not very much incisive in fostering OA publishing: in fact, journal impact factor continues to be used as a measure of the quality of publications [This in spite of recommendation 1.5 of the “Ten years on from Budapest Open Access Initiative”, which “encourage[s] \textit{“encourage[s]  the development of alternative metrics for impact and quality which are less simplistic, more reliable, and entirely open for use and reuse”.]; reuse”}.];  and publishing on OA journals is not taken into consideration for purposes of faculty evaluation. Moreover, all the examined policies but the one of University of Padova [“[L]’Università [\textit{“[L]’Università  si impegna a rimuovere gli ostacoli anche di ordine finanziario che impediscono la politica di open access”.] access”}.]  are silent regarding funding for APCs (Article Processing Charges): this is explained by the fact that for the moment Universities cannot include such an item in their annual budget plan, because a method to calculate the amount which would be spent for APC funding has not still been established (by the way, this issue also hits University of Padova, in spite of the commitment she assumes in its policy to remove the financial obstacles impeding Open Access). To conclude, we can state that – even if “a \textit{“a  transition to green [open access] self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas a transition to gold [open access] publishing depends on the publishing community” community”}  (PRIEST, p. 392) – Universities could anyway give a helping hand towards the transition to Gold OA, by making easier and more advantageous for researchers to choose it.