1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18558/princeton-university-insists-on-open-access/

Princeton University Insists on Open Access

September 28, 2011 by

A new policy at Princeton prohibits (unless a special waver is granted) professors from assigning exclusive rights to publishers. This might at first appear to be a mandate but it is really a liberation. Professors have been browbeat for generations by publishers who demand all rights to an author’s work, which, under the law, they can keep for a lifetime. The new university rule makes it possible for the faculty to insist on a different policy. It is obviously true that faculty want open access and certainly do not want publishers to maintain exclusives to an author’s work. This policy might also help to crack the cartel and force a change of policy at major publishing outlets, which have been reluctant to change even in the digital age.

{ 2 comments }

Universities in india September 30, 2011 at 2:00 am

i have been always searching latest news of top universities and colleges. thanks a lot for
sharing valuable kind of information…..

Stevan Harnad October 1, 2011 at 10:37 am

LIKE ITS HARVARD MODEL, PRINCETON’S OPEN ACCESS POLICY NEEDS TO ADD AN IMMEDIATE-DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT, WITH NO WAIVER OPTION

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/844-guid.html

1. First, congratulations to Princeton University (my graduate alma mater!) for adopting an open access mandate: a copyright-reservation policy, adopted by unanimous faculty vote.

2. Princeton is following in the footsteps of Harvard in adopting the copyright-reservation policy pioneered by Stuart Shieber and Peter Suber.

4. I hope that Princeton will now also follow in the footsteps of Harvard by adding an immediate-deposit requirement with no waiver option to its copyright-reservation mandate, as Harvard has done.

5. The Princeton copyright-reservation policy, like the Harvard copyright-reservation policy, can be waived if the author wishes: This is to allow authors to retain the freedom to choose where to publish, even if the journal does not agree to the copyright-reservation.

6. Adding an immediate-deposit clause, with no opt-out waiver option, retains all the properties and benefits of the copyright-reservation policy while ensuring that all articles are nevertheless deposited in the institutional repository upon publication, with no exceptions: Access to the deposited article can be embargoed, but deposit itself cannot; access is a copyright matter, deposit is not.

7. Depositing all articles upon publication, without exception, is crucial to reaching 100% open access with certainty, and as soon as possible; hence it is the right example to set for the many other universities worldwide that are now contemplating emulating Harvard and Princeton by adopting open access policies of their own; copyright reservation alone, with opt-out, is not.

8. The reason it is imperative that the deposit clause must be immediate and without a waiver option is that, without that, both when and whether articles are deposited at all is indeterminate: With the added deposit requirement the policy is a mandate; without it, it is just a gentleman/scholar’s agreement.

[Footnote: Princeton's open access policy is also unusual in having been adopted before Princeton has created an open access repository for its authors to deposit in: It might be a good idea to create the repository as soon as possible so Princeton authors can get into the habit of practising what they pledge from the outset...]

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: