University open-access policies as mandates
June 30th, 2009
“You can always tell a Harvard man…
but you can’t tell him much.”
— Source unknown
In the abecedary Harvard A to Z, in the entry under “Deans”, the story is told that “a president of the University of Virginia once received a letter requesting a university speaker for an alumni club meeting. To the club’s request that he not designate anyone lower than a dean, the president is alleged to have replied that there was no one lower than a dean.”
Why do deans get no respect? The reason, of course, is that the deanship is by reputation the quintessential position of responsibility without authority. You are in charge of a faculty who do what they will, not what you would have them. The phenomenon is sometimes referred to as “academic freedom”.
I bring this up in the context of questions about “open-access mandates”.
A mandate is an official command without option. An open-access mandate is a commandment that a set of authors make their articles openly available. A deposit mandate is a commandment that a set of authors deposit their articles in a repository. This is what scholarly communications people refer to when they talk about mandates.
On the one hand, the Harvard-style policies look like deposit mandates because they state something like this (as taken from the Harvard FAS policy): “[E]ach Faculty member will provide an electronic copy of the final version of the article at no charge” to the university.
On the other hand, the policies allow for a waiver: “The Dean or the Dean’s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request…”.
On the third hand, certain variants of the policy language that we have now moved to (in particular those at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Graduate School of Education) restrict the waiver to the license, rather than the policy overall: “The Dean or Dean’s designate will waive application of the license for a particular article upon express direction by a Faculty member.”[1]
On the fourth hand, the FAQs at the Office for Scholarly Communication web site advise faculty at all of the schools with open-access policies to deposit their articles in all cases:
What do I have to do to comply with the Open Access Policy?
Here is the two-word answer: always deposit.
On the fifth hand, the FAQ is merely advice, not voted policy.
(I’ve long ago run out of hands.)
Confused? Don’t be, because none of this matters at all.
As any dean will tell you, there is no such thing as a mandate on faculty. One could stipulate a policy that all faculty must wear crimson at monthly faculty meetings; the only result would be benign neglect of the requirement by most faculty and assiduous wearing of blue by a small group interested in tweaking the administration. Trust me.
Try the following thought experiment. Suppose a policy on faculty were established that granted to the university a license in faculty articles but did not explicitly provide for a waiver of the license. Now imagine that a faculty member has an article accepted by a highly prestigious journal that does not allow for author distribution and will not accept an amendment of its copyright transfer policy. Perhaps the author is a junior faculty member soon up for tenure, whose promotion case will be considerably weakened without the publication in question. The author might naturally want to have the license waived even though no waiver is explicitly provided for. The faculty member is likely to storm into the dean’s office, howling about the unconscionable practice of taking rights even when it harms the faculty member. Is the university going to distribute the article anyway against the express wishes of the faculty member? Be serious. The dean says “Fine, we won’t make use of the license for this article.” Voilà, a waiver. So much for university rights retention mandates.
Now suppose the policy “mandated” that every article be deposited into the repository. In practice, the deposit can only occur with the cooperation of the author. No one is going to rifle through faculty members’ files or hard drives looking for copies of manuscripts to distribute. If a faculty member refuses to cooperate, no deposit occurs, and a waiver of the deposit requirement has been obtained by default. So much for university deposit mandates.
In summary, whether a waiver procedure is expressly provided for or not, it exists, whether a waiver of a license or of a deposit requirement.
Given that a policy has a waiver option whether expressly provided for or not, it makes great sense to take the high road and provide for the waiver possibility explicitly. This has multiple benefits. First, it acknowledges reality. Second, it explicitly preserves the freedom of the author. Third, it enables much broader acceptance of the policy. Meanwhile, the policy, by specifying rights retention and deposit for those cases where a waiver does not occur, places the defaults in a better place. Such changes in default are known to have dramatic effect on participation rates for activities ranging from 401K participation to organ donation.
That is why the Harvard open-access policy could not be, should not be, and is not a mandate. I’ve tried to be very careful never to refer to it as a mandate (though I can’t promise I’ve never slipped up). The announcements of the policies at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the Kennedy School, and the Graduate School of Education don’t refer to the policies as mandates. (The law school announcement does call the policy “mandatory”, which I suppose it is strictly speaking, though I would have avoided the term.) But as you can tell, I don’t think it would be a mandate even if we’d left out the waiver language, and even given the narrower waiver language that we have now been able to move to.
Just to be clear, there are several things that I am not saying.
I am not claiming that there can be no true open-access mandates on faculty. Rather, such mandates must come from outside academia. Funders and governments can mandate open access because they can, in the end, refuse to fund noncompliers. They have a stick. All a university, school, or dean has, in the end, is a carrot.
I am not saying that university open-access policies are meaningless. Policies can be tremendously important even if they aren’t mandates. There is a big difference between the Harvard policy and feel-good requests or exhortations or statements of support for open access. It’s not mandate or nothing. What matters is the degree to which faculty participate in providing open access. Having a policy that faculty have overwhelmingly and voluntarily entered into that says we agree that deposits will be the norm and that exceptions will be made only by express direction is very different from no policy at all.
I am not saying that university open-access policies can’t be successful. But success has to be based on something more than coercion, because universities just do not have the ability to coerce their faculty, nor would it be advisable to try. Success must be based on broad collective support. This is why it is important that university OA policies ideally be faculty-initiated and faculty-endorsed. To my mind, it is better to have no policy at all than one with hesitant, lukewarm support.
I am not even saying that people shouldn’t refer to university OA policies such as Harvard’s as mandates (although I do personally avoid the term). There is another sense in which the Harvard-style policies certainly constitute mandates, namely that faculty are technically required to either deposit (say) or expressly opt out of depositing. That may not be the sense that people typically mean when they refer to OA mandates, but the Harvard policy is a mandate in that weaker sense. Refer to a policy as a mandate or not as you see fit.
What I am saying, though, is that worrying about whether a policy is a mandate or not, or whether it allows for waivers or not, is beside the point. All university policies on faculty are waivable, whether they say so or not.
[1] The reason that we adjusted the language from “written request” to “express direction” was first to remove any confusion inhering in the word “request” that it could be denied, and second to make clear that an expression of the direction need not be written in the traditional sense; email and web form direction can serve just as well. Indeed, the most common method for requesting waivers now is through a simple web form that we provide.
July 4th, 2009 at 8:43 am
WHAT’S IN A WORD: TO “LEGISLATE” AND/OR TO “LEGITIMIZE”: THE DOUBLE=MEANING OF “MANDATE”
Although there is a hint of the hermeneutic in his reflections on the uses of the word “mandate,” I think Stuart Shieber, the architect of Harvard’s historic Open Access (OA) policy is quite right in spirit. The word “mandate” is only useful to the extent that it helps get a deposit policy officially adopted — and one that most faculty will actually comply with.
First, note that it has never been suggested that there need to be penalties for noncompliance. OA, after all, is based solely on benefits to the researcher; the idea is not to coerce researchers into doing something that is not in their interest, or something they would really prefer not to do.
Indeed, the author surveys and outcome studies that I have so often cited provide evidence that — far from being opposed to deposit mandates — authors welcome them, and comply with them, over 80% of them willingly.
It is hence natural to ask: if researchers welcome and willingly comply with deposit mandates, why don’t they deposit without a mandate?
I think this is a fundamental question; that it has an answer; and that its answer is very revealing and especially relevant here, because it is related to the double meaning of “mandate”, which means both to “legislate” and to “legitimize”:
There are many worries (at least 34 of them, all groundless and easily answered) keeping most authors from self-archiving on their own, unmandated. But the principle three are worries (1) that self-archiving is illegal, (2) that self-archiving may put acceptance for publication by their preferred journals at risk and (3) that self-archiving is a time-consuming, low-priority task for already overloaded academics.
Formal institutional mandates to self-archive alleviate worries (1) – (3) (and the 31 lesser worries as well) by making it clear to all that self-archiving is now an official institutional policy of high priority.
Harvard’s mandate alleviates the three worries (although not, in my opinion, in the optimal way) by (1) mandating rights-retention, but (2) allowing a waiver or opt-out if the author has any reason not to comply. This covers legal worries about copyright and practical worries about publisher prejudice. The ergonomic worry is mooted by (3) having a proxy service (from the provost’s office, not the dean’s!) do the deposit on the author’s behalf.
The reason I say the Harvard mandate is not optimal is that — as Stuart notes — the crucial condition for the success and universality of OA self-archiving mandates is to ensure that the deposit itself gets done, under all conditions, even if the author opts out because of worries about legality or publisher prejudice.
This distinction is clearly made in the FAQ accompanying the Harvard mandate, informing authors that they should deposit their final refereed drafts upon acceptance for publication whether or not they opt out of making access to their deposits immediately OA.
Harvard’s mandate itself (not just the accompanying FAQ) should have required immediate deposit, and the opt-out clause should only have pertained to whether or not access to that deposit is immediately made OA. The reason is that Closed Access deposit moots both the worry about legality and the worry about journal prejudice. It is merely an institution-internal record-keeping matter, not an OA or publication issue.
But even though the Harvard mandate is suboptimal in this regard, this probably does not matter greatly, because the combination of Harvard’s official mandate and Harvard’s accompanying FAQ have almost the same effect as including the deposit requirement in the official mandate would have had. The mandate is in any case noncoercive. There are no penalties for noncompliance. It merely provides Harvard’s official institutional sanction for self-archiving and it officially enjoins all faculty to do so. (Note that both “injunction” and “sanction” likewise have the double-meaning of “mandate”: each can mean either officially legislating something or officially legitimizing something, or both.)
Now to something closer to ordinary English: There is definitely a difference between an official request and an official requirement; and the total failure of the first version of the NIH policy (merely a request) — as well as the failure of the current request-policies of most of the planet’s current institutional repositories — has shown that only an official requirement can successfully generate deposits and fill repositories — as the subsequent NIH policy upgrade to a mandate and the 90 other institutional and funder mandates worldwide are demonstrating.
So whereas the word “mandate” (or “requirement”) may sometimes be a handicap at the stage where an institution is still debating about whether or not to adopt a deposit policy at all, it is definitely an advantage, indeed a necessity, if the policy, once adopted, is to succeed in generating compliance: Requirements work, requests don’t.
All experience to date has also shown that whereas adding various positive incentives (rewards for first depositors, “cream of science” showcasing, librarian assistance and proxy-depositing) to a mandate can help accelerate compliance, no penalties for noncompliance are needed. Mandates work if they are officially requirements and not requests, if compliance monitoring and implementation procedures are in place, and if the researcher population is well informed of both the mandate requirements and the benefits of OA.
Having said all that, I would like to close by pointing out one sanction/incentive (depending on how you look at it) that is already implicitly built into the academic reward system: Is “publish-or-perish” a mandate, or merely an admonition?
Academics are not “required” to publish, but they are well-advised to do so, for success in getting a job, a grant, or a promotion. Nor are publications merely counted any more, in performance review, like beans. Their research impact is taken into account too. And it is precisely research impact that OA enhances.
So making one’s research output OA is already connected causally to the existing “publish-or-perish” reward system of academia, whether or not OA is mandated. An OA mandate simply closes the causal loop and makes the causal connection explicit. Indeed, a number of the mandating institutions have procedurally linked their deposit mandates to their performance review system:
Faculty already have to submit their refereed publication lists for performance review today. Several of the universities that mandate deposit have simply indicated that henceforth the official mode of submission of publications for performance review will be via deposit in the Institutional Repository.
This simple, natural procedural update — not unlike the transition from submitting paper CVs to submitting digital CVs — is at the same time all the sanction/incentive that academics need: To borrow the title of Steve Lawrence’s seminal 2001 Nature paper on the OA impact advantage: “Online or Invisible.”
Hence an OA “mandate” is in essence just another bureaucratic requirement to do a few extra keystrokes per paper, to deposit a digital copy in one’s institution’s IR. This amounts to no more than a trivial extension to the existing mandate to do the keystrokes to write and publish the paper in the first place: Publisher or Perish, Deposit to Flourish.
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
July 14th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
[…] publishing by Chris At the Occasional Pamphlet, Stuart M. Shieber has a terrific post up about University open-access policies as mandates. Essentially, Schieber notes that university open-access policies are not mandates, in the sense […]
July 24th, 2009 at 12:02 am
[…] So writes Stuart Schieber. This calls to mind Eric Schulman’s poem “Gunga Dean,” which was published in the Annals of Improbable Research (vol. 4, no. 2): You may travel far and near While you’re safely tenured here, And you’ll teach and research without thinking of it, But when it came to meetings, You just let me take your beatings, And I helped you ‘til I got disgusted with it. Now in administration, Where I had great frustration, A-servin’ to the needs of faculty, Of all the suited crew, The worst one that I knew Was our Arts and Science leader, Gunga Dean. It was “Dean! Dean! Dean!” You short-sighted, penny-pinching, Gunga Dean! Though I curse you and I hate you, By the President that made you, You are better paid than I am, Gunga Dean! […]
July 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[…] access repository. Harvard University has three open access policies. As Stuart Shieber explains in this blog post, the Harvard policy should not be viewed as a mandate (though it has been described in those terms) […]
December 25th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
[…] Harvard mandate 並沒有仔細地審查，它的架構師在部落格上就批評說哈佛的開放取用政策根本上就不是一個 mandate。… […]
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
[…] Shieber is right in his reflections on the word “mandate,” which is only useful if it helps get a deposit policy adopted […]