2009/8/30 Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_gmail.com>:
> Correction: Finland's U. Tampere's OA self-archiving policy was
> erroneously listed as a mandate. It is not. It is merely a request,
> not a requirement. As such, it is likely to fail, just as the first
> version of the NIH Public Access failed, for two years, as a request
> (5% compliance), until it was upgraded to a requirement, whereupon it
> became successful (over 60% compliance and growing).
(1) "request" or "require" is only a play on words.
See
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/06/30/university-open-access-policies-as-mandates/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/605-Whats-in-a-Word-To-Legislate-andor-to-Legitimize-the-Double-Meaning-of-Open-Access-Mandate.html
(2) You cannot compare a funder madate (NIH) with an university mandate.
Request in a funder mandate means: "May be there will be disadvantages
if I don't selfarchive"
Request in a university mandate means: "Nothing will happen if I do
so". Harvard-style: "I can get all waivers I need".
(3) I cannot see any proof that the very few documented high deposit
rates after a mandate have the mandate as causa instead of the
readiness of a faculty/university to deposit.
Klaus Graf
Received on Mon Aug 31 2009 - 14:58:33 BST