On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Barbara Birenbaum wrote:
> I am an MLIS student at UCLA. I am currently working
on a paper on
> institutional repositories. I understand from some of
my readings
> that the reality of the institutional repository has
moved in another
> direction from the concepts of both the OA model of
access and the
> SPARC model of encouraging alternative methods of
scholarly
> publication. Will the NIH mandate, if it is signed
into law, move the
> institutional repository back to one or both of its
prior purposes or
> will those concepts remain just a part of the broader
scope of the
> present repositories? I would really appreciate
hearing the list
> members' thoughts on this.
It was -- and continues to be -- a mistake that the NIH
mandate
specifies PMC as the place to deposit. The way to get
maximimum
benefit from the NIH mandate, and to generalize its benefits
to
all fields and all institutions, is to specify that the
deposit
should be in the author's own Institutional Repository
(except in
the inceasingly rare case where the author's institution
does not
yet have an IR). Then PMC and any other repository can
harvest
the metadata (and, if desired, the deposit itself).
Here is the optimal mandate: "Optimizing OA
Self-Archiving
Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/136-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
|
