** Cross-Posted **
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Peter Suber wrote:
> "My argument in a nutshell is that the [Harvard] policy won't
> need revision if the rate of opt-outs is low and the speed of
> deposits is high."
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-08.htm
My question to my closest ally, Peter Suber:
In what respect could that precise same argument, in precisely the same
words, not have been made about the NIH policy of three years ago?
Does it not make sense to immunize the Harvard policy against a similar
failure, instead of waiting to perhaps have to remedy it too, three
years hence, as the failed NIH policy had to be remedied?
Particularly as the simple remedy (a deposit mandate without opt-out)
need merely be added to the current permission mandate with opt-out. Hence
none of the new permission mandate's potential benefits would be lost:
The deposit mandate's compliance rate would simply be added to the
permission mandate's compliance rate.
Is there any independent virtue to embarking on another 3-year experiment
with an untested permission mandate alone, with opt-out, without shoring
it up with an already tried, tested and successful deposit mandate,
without opt-out?
I just don't see how more is learned, or gained, by voluntarily renouncing
a cost-free insurance policy, to see whether an untested permission
mandate with opt-out can go it alone. (Haven't we already been waiting
for OA more than long enough?)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/366-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.h
tml
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing Open Access
to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
http://www.doaj.org/
AND
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your own institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/
Received on Sun Mar 02 2008 - 19:18:32 GMT