Peter Suber, Harvard University

They did one college at a time, initially meeting with every faculty member and explained open access to them and the benefits of a policy. They found a faculty champion in each school to lead the a policy forward. To persuade faculty, they pointed out that:

• the university grants the rights back to the faculty members

• the majority of publishers already give permission to put articles in repositories but with restrictions, and conditions, and a policy would streamline this

• the details of the implementation will be determined by the office implementing in consultation with a faculty advisory committee--The Faculty Advisory Committee protects and helps avoid antagonizing faculty.

Faculty objections included:

• That OA journals are second rate–they addressed this by telling them that the policy isn't about publishing in OA journals–after you deposit in the repository, you can publish wherever you want.

• They want freedom to publish where they want–they addressed this by telling people they can still publisher where they want, and if the publisher doesn't allow posting in a repository, they can get a waiver, no questions asked.

Their policy covers only journal articles published by faculty, but the assume this to also cover conference papers. It doesn't cover books or dissertations. While their policy covers faculty, it doesn't define faculty. what about visiting, emeritus, non-tenure track, adjunct, professors of practice? Other publishing scholars, students, staff, administrators and librarians aren't included. Those not covered can sign a form to "opt-in" to the policy.

They had an FAQ up when promoting the policy, and switched to a different policy explaining what it is after it passed.

Some faculty are concerned about breaching their contract with the publisher when complying with the policy–however, in 10 years, no publishers has sued or threatened to sue Harvard for breach of contract. In practice, the publisher would request the work in question be taken down before suing. If they do sue, they have to prove damages, and for academic articles, those damages are too small to justify lawyer fees. If an individual faculty member is sued about the policy, Harvard will provide legal assistance, but it's never happened.

They will read contracts and help faculty understand them. Even if the contract gives the publisher the exclusive right to distribute, it's low risk to sign even if they item is in or will be in the repository.

Philip Young, Virginia Tech

They formed a subcommittee of research to work on this, and they wrote a proposal to cover all of their campus. They did 3 years of presentations on the policy, and sessions for other parts of governance, presentations to some departments, plus some blogging and tweeting.

To persuade faculty, they pointed out:

• Groups of people who don't have access to the university's research

• the open access citation advantage and altmetrics advantage

• Lots of other universities have policies.

Objections

• many related to faculty not being knowledgeable, e.g. there are no open access journals in their field, they don't like paying APCs.

• author's rights

Their policy covers "scholarly works" and they consider that to include journal articles and conference papers. They use their faculty reporting system to identify works covered by the policy, and plan on having it also email faculty to get the works.

He recommends doing as many presentations as possibly, bringing legal in early, and finding champions from across campus.

Devin Soper, Florida State 

They began advocacy that laid the ground work for a rights retention policy before starting work on the policy. When they began working on the policy, they used the Harvard Good Practices document, and worked with researchers and teaching faculty. They formed a Scholarly Communication Committee that included librarians, faculty, administrators, and research support. They tried to build a coalition. They did a lot of outreach before their policy went for a vote, and they spoke to the Provost, Faculty Union, Faculty Senate Steering Committee, and Library Committee. They had an extensive FAQ up, and emailed all faculty Senators a one page summary in advance of the vote. They targeted more outreach to influential people. It took them awhile to get legal on board–they didn't completely get it.

To persuade faculty, they pointed out:

• broader exposure

• Increased impact metrics

• more citations and better international rankings that consider them

• That peer and prestigious institutions are doing this.

Objections:

• It took awhile to council up to speed.

• Some faculty who serve as editors were consider about loss of revenue for their journals–they agreed to honor embargos to address this concern

• arts and huminites felt left out

• concerned about time and having one more thing to do

• questions library's capacity to support the policy

• nitty gritty concerns about how the policy will work

• copyright concerns

• logistical concerns, e.g. if they're the 7th author and don't have a manuscript, or the manuscript they have doesn't include figures and illustrations, etc.

Their policy only applies to faculty and journal articles, but they consider journal articles to include conference papers.

Jere O'Dell, IUPUI

They had been advocating for a policy when he was hired. A committee for all committees put passing a policy on the Library Affairs Committee's agenda. They looked for a supporter in each school/department (depending on size to help them promote the policy. They did CV/retrospective archiving to show people how open access works. They did a year of outreach, attending departmental level meetings. When they got it on a the docket for a faculty wide vote, they held a series of town halls on the policy. They also did outreach to individuals, contacting 2/3 by email or one-on-one.

To persuade faculty the used the arguments from an MIT chapter on an OA Policy:

• it's going to be easy–the library will do most of the work

• it's not going to hurt you

• it's going to increase readership

• You'll be cited more often.

Objections

• Often personal such as when they edit a small journal. They addressed this with the opt-out provision.

Samantha Dannick, Alfred University

They had individual conversations with faculty about the SUNY mandate that all campus have an OA policy by a given date in advance of trying to pass their own policy. She had no formal partners helping her with promoting the policy.. She talked to people to promote the policy, attending faculty meeting and emailing faculty.

To persuade faculty:

• it will spread faculty scholarship

• give their works a wider audience

Objections:

• they didn't have concerns about OA

• they had concerns about being subject to a mandate–the opt out helped soften

Their policy covers faculty, tenured and tenure track, and technically also adjunct and technical staff. Their policy covers "scholarly works" which is defined vaguely enough to be conference papers and book chapters as well. Monographs and creative works are explicitly not included. It helped that she was on the Faculty Senate–she "shoved it through."