2009/8/30 Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>: > Correction: Finland's U. Tampere's OA self-archiving policy was > erroneously listed as a mandate. It is not. It is merely a request, > not a requirement. As such, it is likely to fail, just as the first > version of the NIH Public Access failed, for two years, as a request > (5% compliance), until it was upgraded to a requirement, whereupon it > became successful (over 60% compliance and growing).
(1) "request" or "require" is only a play on words. See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/06/30/university-open-access-policies-as-mandates/ http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/605-Whats-in-a-Word-To-Legislate-andor-to-Legitimize-the-Double-Meaning-of-Open-Access-Mandate.html (2) You cannot compare a funder madate (NIH) with an university mandate. Request in a funder mandate means: "May be there will be disadvantages if I don't selfarchive" Request in a university mandate means: "Nothing will happen if I do so". Harvard-style: "I can get all waivers I need". (3) I cannot see any proof that the very few documented high deposit rates after a mandate have the mandate as causa instead of the readiness of a faculty/university to deposit. Klaus Graf