13.4 Detailed information on the publisher`s scientific sharing policies is available at: authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/sharing-your-work/. Section 13.2.2 concerns the version («Final pdf version… (12 months for STM securities, 18 months for SSH securities), but the OA directive and the licence granted to them are silent on both sides. We tend to file manuscripts (AAM) accepted by authors according to the best practices of The Harvard OA Project for the Uni Open Access Guidelines, but since the OA Directive is silent, I do not want to make this commitment on behalf of the authors. The same goes for embargoes. The OA Directive does not mention any embargo, so the decision to respect (or not to comply with) an embargo on publishing is entirely up to the author of the faculty. If they want to comply with the embargo, we do it; If they want it to circulate openly, we do it. Their work, their OA policy, their choice. Since the rights conferred by the OA directives survive the subsequent transfer of rights, the rights granted by the OA Directive are also in conflict with the publisher`s agreement (particularly at the time).

13.2.2 attempts to limit our ability to exercise the rights granted by the previous license of the Faculty of Policy OA. The approval of restrictions on behalf of the faculty, when they have adopted a policy that does not impose these restrictions, seems to me to be deeply problematic and a betrayal of our mission of support. In principle, content licenses between KU libraries and a publisher are intended to provide access to content granted to KU students, teachers and staff. It is ok. In this IR section of the T-F content license, this is not about that; It`s about how to support our institutional authors who publish in the magazines T-F. Given that our IR is an institutional service for our authors, I do not see why a publishing house should have a voice in determining how we provide this service as long as we work within the law. If the UCE did not have an open access policy, the impact would be negligible in the short term (despite the above criticisms of 13.2.3, 13.2.4 and 13.3). I say in the short term, because it could limit the ability of an institutional library to support a future OA policy if its faculty ever adopts and implements a policy. Given the continued growth of OA`s policy, this seems likely if this section becomes the norm. This section appears to be directly aimed at undermining institutional policies on open access in the style of Harvard (conservation of rights) and the commitment of institutions to author agreements (which the institution does not sign) by codifying the rights granted in these agreements in an institutional agreement. Content licenses probably have nothing to do with how we support our authors in the faculty, so it has no place in a content license, IMO. Of course, this is questioned in the UC read and publish the proposal to Elsevier, and there are isolated incidents of elite institutional libraries better offers for their authors of the faculty by these agreements.