Comments on: Open Crimson: Harvard’s Arts and Sciences Goes Open Access

By: Greg Lastowka

Greg Lastowka — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:16:00 +0000

There’s a lot to say about this. I’ll just offer one little thought: At a conference I attended a couple years ago, an audience member complained to a faculty member from MIT that university-wide open access policies like this ultimately benefit schools like MIT (and Harvard), because they build upon the strength of already outsized educational brands. In the main, I don’t agree with that (and I applaud this move by Harvard faculty) but I do think that’s an interesting concern.

By: C.E. Petit

C.E. Petit — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:50:52 +0000

Two snide observations:

(1) Did anybody invite anyone from Harvard University Press or the various HLS law journals to this party? If so, the irony meter would have been pegged: HUP (and the HLS journals) have some of the most unreasonable copyright and permissions policies among university-based academic publishers.

(2) Has anyone considered what the proper treatment of a paper coauthored with a non-Harvard academic might be? It is not clear at all from what I have seen. And this will get really, really interesting with non-US coauthors!

By: Rebecca Tushnet

Rebecca Tushnet — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:08:06 +0000

I had a similar set of reactions — speaking of “articles” instead of “rights” in the nonprofit part of the policy suggests that IP lawyers were excluded from drafting. Could you expand more on the CC problems? The professor can still release the works under CC, no? But your concern is that Harvard can’t decide to use CC under this policy?

By: Deven

Deven — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:36:32 +0000

Hello all,

Let me clarify. I am not saying this move is bad. I am saying that given the slowness and the access to resources, the license (without more information on how it was achieved) seems odd. As you both note, yes, moving the idea forward is good. And Harvard is well placed to handle the need to adjust the policy if it arises. They are supposed to revisit the idea in three years.

Still what do you think about these smaller issues? Do they matter? Should other universities follow the exact example or should they alter the license a little?

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:37:41 +0000

The university mandate may seem troubling at first, but the inertia here has been truly inexcusable. There are so many people that do not have access to scholarly papers.

Also, the university mandate may give the profs a needed bargaining chip in dealing with the anti-open-access journals. Before a university
requirement like this, journals had the upper hand. What’s nice is that if the journals continue playing hardball, they may well lose their Harvard authors, who can start alternatives (such as Varmus’s PLOS Biology).

Somebody had to take the initial “hit” to get the OA ball rolling. Harvard deserves enormous credit for expending the reputational capital necessary to break publishers’ stranglehold on many valuable works in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.