<p>Accepted author manuscript or author accepted manuscript (AAM)
<em> The accepted author manuscript (AAM) is the version of the manuscript approved by peer review.
</em> It’s not equivalent to a preprint, since the AAM has been peer-reviewed. It’s not equivalent to the version of record (VOR), since the VOR may have copy edits, formatting, layout, etc. added by the publisher after peer review.
* Most publishers’ OA policies (allowing for Green OA) apply to AAMs, not to VORs.</p>
<p>Article processing charge (APC)
<em> A fee charged by some OA journals to publish an article in OA. Some APCs cover more than the costs of production, with the publisher charging whatever the market will bear.
</em> A common misunderstanding is that all or most OA journals use APCs. But only about 30% of them do. (The DOAJ has the latest count on this, at least for the OA journals listed in the DOAJ.) About 50% or more of the articles published in OA journals are published in fee-based OA journals.
* Another common misunderstanding is that the “APC model” is an “author-pays model.” But that is misleading. In the Global North, most APCs are paid by the author’s funder or employer, not by the author out of pocket (see <a href="https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9" rel="nofollow">review of studies</a>).</p>
<em> A proposed amendment to a publishing contract allowing the author to retain more rights than the standard contract would have allowed. An author addendum typically starts, “Notwithstanding the terms of the attached contract, the author retains the following rights....” Many of them also include a clause saying that the publisher accepts the addendum if it publishes the work without previously and explicitly rejecting the addendum. See examples in <a href="http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Author_addenda" rel="nofollow">the OAD list of author addenda</a>.
</em> Because addenda are proposed amendments, the publisher may accept or reject them, and most publishers reject them.
* In the days of paper contracts, authors could print their favorite addendum, sign it, and staple it to the signed contract. But today many publishers use online contracts. This makes it difficult or impossible to attach an addendum or propose any modifications. When the online form has a free-form text box for any purpose, the author could write in that box, “My agreement to this contract is subject to the addendum that I sent by email to NAME on DATE.”</p>
<p>Author’s final manuscript
* See Accepted author manuscript.</p>
<p>Author’s final draft
* See Accepted author manuscript.</p>
<p>Book processing charge (BPC)
* A fee charged by some publishers to make a book OA.</p>
* See Gratis OA.</p>
<p>Chapter processing charge (CPC)
* A fee charged by some publishers to make a chapter of an edited volume OA.</p>
* Adhering to a policy by making a work OA through one of the prescribed mechanisms. Some institutions refer to this as “participation”. </p>
* See Platinum OA.</p>
* In most OA contexts, an embargo is the delay between the date of publication and the date a version of the item becomes OA.
Note that funder OA policies commonly include embargo provisions, but these create permissible embargoes, not mandatory embargoes. Some publishing contracts permit green OA, but usually with mandatory embargoes.
Note that rights-retention policies (i.e. Harvard-style or opt out policies) give universities permission to disregard publisher demands for embargoes, since the universities have OA permission from the authors, when the authors were the copyright holders, not from the publishers. </p>
<p>Funder policy (or mandate)
* An OA policy (or mandate) from a funding agency, in contrast to an OA policy from another kind of organization, such as a university.</p>
<em> The publisher of the work makes it OA. Strictly speaking, the term refers to any method of publishing in which the final version of the work is made freely available
</em> Some use the term to refer to fee-based (APC-based) OA journals. However, the original meaning of the term was journal-based OA regardless of the journal's business model, and many people continue to use the term that way today.</p>
<em> The work is available to read online and free of charge.
</em> The work may or may not have an open license for reuse. When it has an open license, then it’s both Gratis and Libre OA. When it doesn’t, then it is gratis OA. </p>
<em> The work is OA through a repository.
</em> Green OA is compatible with gold OA: an article may be OA from a journal and OA in a repository at the same time.
<em> Green OA is always no-fee (no-APC) OA.
</em> Green OA can cover any version of a work so long as the depositor has the rights to share that version; thus, green OA can cover both AAMs and VORs. However, most green OA articles are AAMs, not VORs.
* Green OA can be merely Gratis or both Gratis and Libre. However, most Green OA works are merely Gratis.</p>
* See rights-retention policy.</p>
<p>Institutional policy (or mandate)
* An OA policy (or mandate) from an institution, such as a university or a research think tank. Contrast this to an OA policy from another type of organization, such as a funding agency. </p>
<p>Institutional repository (IR)
<em> A digital repository intended to capture the research output of an institution, such as a university, usually offering OA to most of its holdings. By contrast, a disciplinary (or subject) repository is an OA repository intended to capture the research output of a discipline, field, or topic.
</em> An IR can can serve one institution alone or be shared by a number of institutions. An IR can focus on just content covered by an OA policy or could also include other content related to the institution (administrative records, digitized copies of works from the library’s special collections).
<em> An IR provides not only OA to at least some of its content but also some measure of preservation. IRs may not be as robust as state-of-the-art digital preservation platforms, but they are far more robust and systemic in approach than personal websites.
</em> A well-made and well-configured IR complies with the <a href="https://www.openarchives.org/pmh/" rel="nofollow">Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)</a>, and is searchable by mainstream academic and non-academic search engines. This prevents siloing of information.
* See the lists of OA repositories – both institutional and disciplinary -- from the Directory of Open Access Repositories (<a href="http://www.opendoar.org/" rel="nofollow">OpenDOAR</a>) and the Registry of Open Access Repositories (<a href="http://roar.eprints.org/" rel="nofollow">ROAR</a>).</p>
* The work is available to read online and free of charge under an open license. The license allows uses beyond fair use (or fair dealing). Works which are Libre OA are also Gratis OA.</p>
* A university OA policy that not only mandates deposit in the institutional repository but also specifies that the institutional assessment of scholarly articles (for example, for promotion and tenure) will be based solely on those that have been deposited in the IR.</p>
* A deposit of a work into an IR performed on the author’s behalf, generally by the entity managing the IR, such as a library. </p>
<em> A license based on non-exclusive rights.
</em> For example, under Harvard-style policies, faculty grant the institution some non-exclusive rights to their future scholarly articles. That gives the institution a “non-exclusive license” to use those articles, including permission to make those articles OA through the institutional repository. This license may be subject to a waiver or opt-out by the author.</p>
* Access to scholarship that is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.</p>
* According to <a href="http://bit.ly/goodoa" rel="nofollow">"Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies"</a>, at an institution with no policy at all, “faculty may already opt in to the practice of self-archiving and OA.” An opt-in policy differs from mere request or encouragement policies only “by leaving the impression that asking faculty to opt in to an OA policy is somehow different from requesting or encouraging OA itself.” Thus an opt-in policy is <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Drafting_a_policy#Types_of_policy" rel="nofollow">equivalent to no policy at all</a>. </p>
* A policy in which the institution by default holds a license to make new faculty works OA, but which allows faculty authors to opt out of that license, or get a waiver, for any given work. Rights-retention policies with waiver options are opt-out policies. </p>
* A business model in which an OA journal charges no subscription and no APC. The journal is no-fee for readers and no-fee for authors.The publishing costs instead are covered by one or more sponsoring organizations or funders.</p>
* In the early days of the OA movement, advocates used the term “postprint” to refer to any peer-reviewed version of a work. Today there are at least two kinds of postprints with specific names: (1) the accepted author manuscript (AAM) and (2) the version of record (VOR). It is generally clearer to use one of these less ambiguous terms. But if we need a generic term that covers both AAMs and VORs, “postprints” is the obvious choice. </p>
<em> Any version of a scholarly work—but especially a scholarly article—prior to peer review.
</em> In some fields, “preprint” is synonymous with “working paper”.</p>
<em> Harvard-style OA policies are also called “rights-retention” policies. They apply only to scholarly articles created by faculty, not other works. What makes them distinctive is that, by voting them up, faculty grant the institution non-exclusive rights to their future scholarly articles. Hence, when the repository obtains a copy of the text, it already has permission to distribute it, and need not seek permission from the publisher or look up the publisher’s policy in the <a href="http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php" rel="nofollow">SHERPA/RoMEO database of publishers’ policies on copyright and self-archiving</a>. Faculty members who don’t want the institution to hold that nonexclusive “license” in a given article may obtain a waiver for that article. In that sense, the policies merely shift to default to open, and authors retain the freedom to decide for or against OA for any article. (For the same reason, Harvard-style policies are opt-out policies.) Harvard was the first university to adopt rights-retention policies, and today there are <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Additional_resources#Policies_of_the_kind_recommended_in_the_guide" rel="nofollow">more than 70 others</a> worldwide, in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. At least two funders (Wellcome Trust and NIH) had rights-retention policies before Harvard, or before any universities.
</em> See the <a href="https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies/" rel="nofollow">Harvard OA policies</a> themselves. Also see <a href="http://bit.ly/goodoa" rel="nofollow">"Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies"</a>, which focuses on rights-retention policies.</p>
<p>Technical report (Science report)
<em> A publication outlining a technical or scientific research problem or outlining the technical or science research process, progress, or results. Generally they are not formally and/or externally peer reviewed, and they may not be traditionally published.
</em> In some fields, “working paper” or “white paper” is synonymous with “technical report”.</p>
* In contrast with a mediated deposit, an unmediated deposit is performed by the author or a delegate, who submits the metadata and full text of the work for deposit into the IR. The submission may then be vetted by repository staff.</p>
<p>Version of record (VOR)
* The final published version, including the publisher’s final copy-edits, pagination, and look-and-feel. </p>
* In a rights-retention (or Harvard-style) OA policy, the institution by default holds a nonexclusive license to make new faculty works OA. A “waiver” is an opt out of that license for a given work. See the <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Drafting_a_policy#Waiver_option" rel="nofollow">section on waivers</a> in <a href="http://bit.ly/goodoa" rel="nofollow">"Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies"</a>. </p>
<em> Under US copyright law 17 USC 205(e), when a grant of non-exclusive rights is affirmed in writing (“evidenced by a written instrument”), then it prevails over a subsequent grant of exclusive rights. When the earlier grant of nonexclusive rights is not affirmed in writing, then the later grant of exclusive rights prevails. See the <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Implementing_a_policy#Individualized_writing" rel="nofollow">section on this kind of written affirmation</a> in <a href="http://bit.ly/goodoa" rel="nofollow">"Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies"</a>.
</em> This matters for rights-retention (Harvard-style) policies in the US. Since these policies grant the institution non-exclusive rights to future works, they should be affirmed in writing if they are to prevail over subsequent publishing contracts that grant exclusive rights to publishers. </p>
<em> Any version of a scholarly work—but especially a scholarly article—prior to peer review, often released for input.
</em> In some fields, “working paper” is synonymous with “preprint”; in others, it is synonymous with “technical report” or “white paper”. </p>