From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:12:03 -0700

At Arizona State University, we have just worked through creation of
an OA policy, passed by the Faculty Senate, on the Harvard model.  My
sense is that a fair number of institutions have been doing this.  The
undoubted benefit of these policies consists in consciousness-raising,
the enunciation of principles, and the creation of a framework for the
extension of OA through the system of scholarly communication in
research universities.  At the same time, progress as measured by
compliance figures is interpreted either strong or weak, depending
mainly on the observer's position in debates concerning OA.  Have
there been any known cases of material negative consequences for the
work or career of noncompliant faculty?

Jim O'Donnell
Arizona State


On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:45 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:04:50 +0000
>
> Last week a friend in the UK sent me the following comment, “The major fuss
> brewing here is over the proposed implementation (by universities) of the
> Harvard model as the scholarly communications licence.  It seems, according
> to the publishers, that the end of the world will come if this happens.  I
> hadn't noticed the end of the world happening in the US because of Harvard”.
>
> I must admit I had not really been across this debate which is clearly
> hotting up in UK. While this topic initially may seem remote to some US
> readers of this list, the debate raises yet again fundamental issues
> regarding scholarly communication in the 21st century and whether we are
> still locked, while clearly in digital access mode, in 20th century
> historical print paradigms, metrics and pricing.
>
> The UK license debate can be seen in the University of Glasgow background
> document at https://frontdoor.spa.gla.ac.uk/committees/inf/LC/Papers/
> UK%20Scholarly%20Communications%20LicenceBriefingPaper.pdf
>
> There is a lot of background on the web . See for instance the recent
> Scholarly Kitchen blog by Karin Wulf  at https://scholarlykitchen.
> sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-communications-license/ .
> Note the contrasting commentary views after Karin's viewpoint, especially
> the response by Dr Torsten Reimer, Head of Research Services, The British
> Library. Peter Suber also posted his comments to clarify the Harvard
> situation, which are copied below.
>
> Rather than identifying librarians as the problem, as Wulf occasionally
> does, she would have been better, taking a wider perspective of scholarly
> communication issues and background. Librarians are often caught between
> faculty pressure and sophisticated publisher lobbying of governments and
> research bodies. Some would argue that the OA debate in UK went awry when
> the Dame Janet Finch committee in 2012, arguably influenced by multinational
> publishers on the committee, recommended the gold open access approach,
> specifically for articles, but Finch did not provide a framework for
> long-term redistribution of university library subscriptions in order to
> fund those payments. In that context, Dr Danny Kingsley at Cambridge
> University Library, has identified some of the issues and problems in double
> dipping article payment, record-keeping and compensation that have flowed
> post Finch. The debate will undoubtedly continue globally. Best Colin
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SNIP]