OA POLICY/MANDATE
(draft)
1. IDENTIFY
FACULTY CHAMPIONS
2. IDENTIFY MESSAGES THAT RESONATE WITH PARTICULAR GROUPS
a. Faculty as creators of work: visibility of research, stable location of work
b. Faculty as consumers of research also!
i. Emphasize wide distribution and ready availability of their work.
ii. Emphasize access and preservation, not just of their work but for other research as well, and do NOT emphasize serials crisis or even a public good
iii. Appeal to senior faculty to incentivize change
iv. Institutional commitment to ensure that work in the IR is made as accessible as possible through search engines like Google and Google Scholar
c.
Administration: institutional reputation
3.
AVOID TOP-DOWN MANDATE: FROM PRESIDENT & FACULTY SENATE
(u. of md case study);
a. Mobilize the committed faculty, possibly through
b.
ULC:
University Libraries Committee and/or new faculty governance
sub-committee
4. STRATEGIES
a. Greater participation in the IR@UF
b. Make compliance as easy as possible: deposit
c. Greater faculty awareness of control of commercial publishers over their work and academic freedom (i.e., all copyrights, creating derivatives and rebundling, removal of peer-reviewed research from public access)
d. Awareness that copyright begins with UF but has been informally granted back to faculty by a long-standing academic tradition; to reclaim copyright for the faculty AND the institution.
e. Legal protection of faculty by General Counsel’s Office (MIT)
f. Shift the Article Processing Fees first to funding agency (grant) and also to academic institution (UFOAP)
g. Encourage faculty to use OA materials, and then to give back in the same way
h. Note that if faculty increase OA publishing, the journals will increase in prestige
i. Show off the existing policies at Harvard, MIT, Stanford’s School of Education, Boston U., U. of Kansas, Duke U., etc. , and use for discussion groups
j.
Be willing to accept an “opt-out”
policy to grant faculty freedom to publish where they choose (better than an
“opt-in” policy!)
5.
ELEMENTS OF POLICY/MANDATE:
(Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing, 2011, pp. 92 -93)
a. Focus on author deposit of final manuscript in IR@UF
b. Requirement that faculty pursue non-exclusive licensing agreements with publishers
c. Institutional commitment to use the non-exclusive license to negotiate directly with publishers on behalf of authors
d. Opt-out waiver process
e.
Institutional representative
responsible for interpreting policy and resolving disputes
6. RESOURCES
a. Sophia’s report: PP. 77-97: Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future.
b. ARL/ACRL Environmental Scan: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/opp.pdf
At the March 15, 2011 Emory University Faculty Council meeting, the attached
Open Access Policy was adopted unanimously.
Open Access Resolution
Adopted by the Faculty Senate Council: December 21, 2010
Scheduled to be presented and voted on at the Faculty Senate meeting: May 9, 2011
|
