Excellent news from Harvard! It looks as if the Harvard Green OA
Mandate<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20of%20Arts%20and%20Sciences>is
has added an I
D/OA <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html>Immediate
Deposit Clause with no opt-out.

This would make it into the optimal Green OA Mandate
model<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html>,
now ready for all universities worldwide to emulate: rights-retention (with
optional opt-out) plus Immediate-Deposit (without
opt-out)<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html>
.

And please remember that three main
reasons<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/>researchers are not
self-archiving spontaneously are (1) worries that it
might be illegal, (2) worries that it might put acceptance by their
preferred journal at risk, and (3) worries that it might take a lot of time.
They need mandates from their institutions and funders not in order to
coerce them to self-archive but in order to embolden them to self-archive,
making it official that it is not only okay to self-archive, but that it is
expected of them, and well worth the few minutes worth of extra
keystrokes<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/>per paper.

The Harvard mandate now has all the requisite ingredients for performing
this facilitating function: Deposit itself is required, but negotiating
rights-retention and making the deposit OA can be waived if there are
reasons to do so. One cannot ask for a better policy than this, and
worldwide adoption will usher in universal OA as surely as day follows
night. -- Stevan Harnad

>From Peter Suber's Open Access News

At Harvard, waivers apply to OA, not to
deposits<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/03/at-harvard-waivers-apply-to-oa-not-to.html>

The Harvard Office for Scholarly
Communication<http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/osc.php> has
updated two of the FAQs on the university's OA mandates.  I'm not posting
all the new language, just the new answers to two existing questions:

>From the Policy FAQ <http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/OpenAccess/policy.php>:

What do I have to do to comply with this
policy?<http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/OpenAccess/policy.php#q09>

Here is the one-line answer: ADDENDUM or WAIVER but in any case DEPOSIT....

Whether or not you included the addendum or the publisher accepted it, you
should always deposit the author's final version of your article in
the DASH<http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/DASH/index.php>
 repository....

>From the Procedural FAQ<http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/OpenAccess/procedures.php>
:

Should I include my article in the Harvard repository even if I have gotten
a waiver for it? <http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/OpenAccess/procedures.php#q08>
[PS:  Formerly:  *May I be able to include*...?]

Yes. The repository accepts not only articles covered by the license granted
to Harvard under the FAS policy, but also articles not covered by the
license but for which the publisher grants, or the author has otherwise
secured, sufficient rights. Even if you take a waiver, the publisher's
agreement may provide, or you may be able to negotiate, sufficient rights to
allow copies of your article to be made publicly available in the Harvard
repository. The publisher may ask that certain conditions be met, some of
which the repository can accommodate (for example, an embargo period during
which the article will not be made publicly available)....

*Comment*.  The new language makes clear that the Harvard policies expect
deposit even when faculty members obtain waivers and do not or cannot
authorize OA.  This is an excellent policy and welcome clarification.

[image: Permanent link to this
post]<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/03/at-harvard-waivers-apply-to-oa-not-to.html>
Posted
in OA News by Peter Suber at 3/07/2009 04:42:00 PM.