From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:27:56 -0500

I don't consider it a "minor" point. Some institutions, in fact, have
established OA policies only for certain parts. Harvard, for example,
has an OA policy that applies to its Faculty of Arts and Sciences. I'm
not aware that it is a university-wide policy that applies also, for
example, to the Business School or the Law School. At Stanford it was
the School of Education that first adopted an OA policy.

The announcement mentions "scientific" throughout. One would never
know, without reading the actual policy, that it applies to the
humanities and social sciences as well. I consider that a failure to
properly communicate the actual facts of the policy.

Sandy Thatcher


At 8:05 PM -0400 6/6/12, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Klaus Graf <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:04:27 +0200
>
> I do not think it is helpful to discuss such minor points. It is clear
> enough that OA mandates refer to the scholarly output (in the field of
> science and arts/humanities) of an institution. Mandates are
> self-obligations, not legal texts.
>
> I cannot find that "final version" is'nt clear. If the "version of
> record" can be used it can be deposited - otherwise  only the "final
> draft" (version after peer review if a peer review was performed). So
> there is no doubt that this is an Green OA approach.
>
> Klaus Graf
>
>
> 2012/6/5 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>  From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:44:58 -0500
>>
>>  This press release emphasizes "scientific articles," but the policy
>>  itself is not limited to articles in the sciences but to all faculty
>>  articles of any kind.
>>
>>  The policy refers to the "final version" of the article, but provides
>>  no definition of what that term means.  So, is this a Green OA
>>  approach, or not?
>>
>>  It would be helpful if such policies and their accompanying press
>>  releases were written with greater clarity.
>>
>>  Sandy Thatcher