BOAI/Section1 - Revision history

Hgibson at 21:38, 15 September 2013

2013-09-15T21:38:57Z

Hgibson at 21:38, 15 September 2013

2013-09-15T21:38:32Z

Hgibson at 21:37, 15 September 2013

2013-09-15T21:37:36Z

Hgibson at 18:26, 22 March 2013

2013-03-22T18:26:17Z

Hgibson at 12:26, 26 September 2012

2012-09-26T12:26:41Z

Hgibson at 16:48, 19 September 2012

2012-09-19T16:48:53Z

Hgibson: /* 1.1 */

2012-09-19T09:47:59Z

1.1

Hgibson: /* 1.1 */

2012-09-19T09:47:25Z

1.1

Hgibson: /* 1.1 */

2012-09-19T09:47:07Z

1.1

Hgibson: /* 1.1 */

2012-09-19T09:46:44Z

1.1

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ===1.1===
 #'''<font color="red">Every institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. ([[BOAI/Section3|See recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories]].)'''</font>
-#*'''<font color="red">Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.'''</font>
+#'''<font color="red">Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.'''</font>
 *University policies should respect faculty freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice.
 *University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ===1.1===
-*'''<font color="red">Every institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. ([[BOAI/Section3|See recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories]].)'''</font>
+#'''<font color="red">Every institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. ([[BOAI/Section3|See recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories]].)'''</font>
-*'''<font color="red">Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.'''</font>
+#*'''<font color="red">Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.'''</font>
 *University policies should respect faculty freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice.
 *University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ===1.1===
 *'''<font color="red">Every institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. ([[BOAI/Section3|See recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories]].)'''</font>
-*Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
+*'''<font color="red">Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.'''</font>
 *University policies should respect faculty freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice.
 *University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ===1.6===
-*'''<u>Universities with institutional repositories should require deposit in the repository for all research articles to be considered for promotion, tenure, or other forms of internal assessment and review.</u>'''
+*'''<font color="red"><u>Universities with institutional repositories should require deposit in the repository for all research articles to be considered for promotion, tenure, or other forms of internal assessment and review.</u></font>'''
 *Similarly, governments performing research assessment should require deposit in OA repositories for all research articles to be reviewed for national assessment purposes.
 *Neither policy should be construed to limit the review of other sorts of evidence, or to alter the standards of review.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
   '''[[BOAI|Back to INDEX]]'''
-=On policy=
+==Budapest Open Access Initiative - On policy==
 ==1.1==
 *'''<font color="red">Every institution of higher education should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. ([[BOAI/Section3|See recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories]].)'''</font>
 *Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
@@ Line 11: / Line 12: @@
 **Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication).
-==1.2==
+===1.2===
 *Every institution of higher education offering advanced degrees should have a policy assuring that future theses and dissertations are deposited upon acceptance in the institution's OA repository.
 *At the request of students who want to publish their work, or seek a patent on a patentable discovery, policies should grant reasonable delays rather than permanent exemptions.
-==1.3==
+===1.3===
 *Every research funding agency, public or private, should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles reporting funded research are deposited in a suitable repository and made OA as soon as practicable.
 *Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
@@ Line 26: / Line 27: @@
 *The funder’s choice should be determined by ongoing research into questions such as which choice best fosters the deposit of covered articles, the utility of deposits, the convenience of funders and authors, and incentives for the further growth of OA.
-==1.4==
+===1.4===
 *All university and funder OA policies should require deposit in a suitable OA repository between the date of acceptance and the date of publication.
 *'''The metadata should be deposited as soon as it is available and should be OA from the moment of deposit.'''
 *'''The full-text should be made OA as soon as the repository has permission to make it OA.'''
-==1.5==
+===1.5===
 *We discourage the use of journal impact factors as surrogates for the quality of journals, articles, or authors.
 *'''We encourage the development of alternative metrics for impact and quality which are less simplistic, more reliable, and entirely open for use and reuse.'''
@@ Line 40: / Line 41: @@
 *As impact metrics improve, we encourage further study into the question whether OA and OA policies increase research impact.
-==1.6==
+===1.6===
 *'''<u>Universities with institutional repositories should require deposit in the repository for all research articles to be considered for promotion, tenure, or other forms of internal assessment and review.</u>'''
 *Similarly, governments performing research assessment should require deposit in OA repositories for all research articles to be reviewed for national assessment purposes.
 *Neither policy should be construed to limit the review of other sorts of evidence, or to alter the standards of review.
-==1.7==
+===1.7===
 *Publishers who do not provide OA should at least permit it through their formal publishing agreements.
 *Publishers should refrain from lobbying against governments acting in the public interest, and refrain from lobbying against research institutions acting in the interests of researchers and research.

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 *The minority of subscription-based publishers who do not yet allow author-initiated green OA, without payment or embargo, should adopt the majority position.
 *We remind researchers that they need not work as authors, editors, or referees for publishers who act against their interests.
 __NOTOC__

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.
 *When possible, university policies should be adopted by faculty vote, should require immediate OA, and should welcome repository deposits even when not required (e.g. datasets, conference presentations, books or book chapters, work published before the policy's adoption, and so on).
-*When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses.
+*'''When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses.'''
-**'''The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained.'''
+**The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained.
 **Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication).