 |
 |
Unless there has been a recent change, Sherpa ROMEO does not keep past versions of terms. So if terms change later and Sherpa ROMEO posts the update, you cannot get a history of terms and when they were in effect. I think with Sherpa ROMEO, you have 2 goals (1) trying to get accurate info, plus (2) showing that you went through the process and tried to get accurate info which gives you some protections later. If you have the accurate info and are free to post the paper, then you never need to show that you did the checking. Because no one would have a contract showing assigned copyright and ability to sue. If you got inaccurate info from Sherpa ROMEO, then showing that you checked and acted on inaccurate info puts you in a better place. I would tend to save and keep the Sherpa ROMEO search with a date shown for that search and keep it however you keep your permissions records. For documenting permissions, I always would try to put the permissions documents like signed releases or purchase for perpetual acces in the repository in a not public area and label it really well so it won't be inadvertently discarded later. In the past, I have flavored keeping all permissions documentation in an administrative area, and having it clearly explained within that administrative area what is in the administrative area. In practice, permissions documentation eventually gets lost because of staff turnover and lack of institutional memory and the permissions documents being discarded. In a perfect world, the permissions grant could be attached to the file, but someone may get upset about posting signatures, so you risk institutional pressures later if someone comes in who doesn't like the permissions documents being visible and a part of the content files. For open licenses granted by authors (ie. Creative Commons), I recommend to put the license in the file rather than in metadata, because metadata can be batch changed in a system or mapped in a migration to where it might be lost or there might be a question as to whether or not it was overwritten. For example, Open Journal Systems can be set to require authors do a click through for open licensing, but I think it's better to then put that license in the text of the article as part of final copy editing. That's because metadata can be casually changed later or changed by an automated process (batch update or migration). Open Journal Systems even allows a batch overwrite, so good luck proving 20 years from now that that license in metadata really was done with a click through by the author. The license needs to go in the file for long term not getting lost, and metadata is only for search today. I'm very much in favor of keeping all the documentation and making it part of the content files whenever possible. It's because I have seen projects years later when the permissions files are now lost or were discarded and the library decides they can prove the permissions and decides to go through the process again and reobtain permission by manually contacting. I have also come in to managing collections which were purchased for perpetual access, where the purchase paperwork was thrown away because after the audit period for the purchase ran out, the organization threw it away. Sticking the permissions in the same file as the content will eventually save work later. -Wilhelmina Randtke On Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 12:36 AM Sean Carte <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm hoping that somebody could provide me with some guidelines regarding > what is considered best practice for storing evidence that copyright > approval has been granted for items shared on an open access repository. > > Currently, we have a DSpace repository and, when an item is submitted, a > 'license agreement' is attached, according to which, the author grants a > non-exclusive distribution licence to the repository to reproduce, > translate and or distribute the submission. However, the submissions are > not done by the authors, but by other staff on their behalf. Does this > licence have any validity? > > Also, for journal articles that have been published elsewhere, library > staff check Sherpa/ROMEO to verify the journal's policies. But that outcome > is not recorded anywhere. Should we be attaching a screenshot of the > Sherpa/ROMEO advice to every journal article item? > > I'd love to know what other libraries are doing. > > Sean >