From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 02:43:24 +0000 Colin, one of the defining characteristics of a Harvard-style OA policy is that it’s voluntary — the faculty member is granted a waiver upon request, and the waiver lasts for as long as the faculty member wants it to. As I understand the UKSCL, it is not voluntary: faculty may request a waiver, but the university isn’t required to grant it, and even if it does the waiver will last no longer than two years (after publication). Is my understanding of the UKSL correct? If so, then the difference between it and a Harvard-style policy is very great: a Harvard-style policy is voluntary, while the UKSCL is not. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask] 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] Colin Steele Emeritus Fellow ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences The Australian National University Room 3.31, Beryl Rawson Building #13 Acton, ACT, 2601 Australia P: + 61 2 6125 8983<tel:+61%202%206125%208983> E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>