On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Heather Morrison
<heatherm_at_eln.bc.ca> wrote:
In the unlikely event that the U.S. decides to change its
copyright
laws to block open access, a "Plan B" for OA that seems a
good fit
for the US context is expanding the Harvard-style mandate
approach.
It is not at all clear what Heather means by "expanding the
Harvard-style mandate approach."
Harvard's current mandate is a partial copyright-retention mandate,
allowing embargoed OA and author opt-out. with no Immediate Deposit
Clause or "email eprint request" Button.
If NIH tried to adopt that mandate, it would not only become even
more vulnerable to the publisher lobby, but it would introduce an
opt-out, making its mandate no longer a mandate.
That's not a Plan B, it's an Exit Strategy.
Universities, unlike governments, are not vulnerable to publisher
lobbies.
But Harvard's mandate is itself in need of an upgrade to add
Immediate Deposit with no opt-out (plus the Button):
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html
As Stevan Harnad has pointed out, OA is unstoppable; once
researchers
fully grasp its benefits, they will take matters into
their own
hands, and make it happen. The sheer absurdity of this
approach can
only help!
Absurdity never helps. A Plan B needs to be clearly and fully thought
through.
Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue Sep 16 2008 - 19:03:42 BST