** Apologies for Cross-Posting **
Hyperlinked version of this posting:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/373-guid.html
I suggest not colluding with publishers offering to
"let us do
the [mandated] deposit for you".
The reason is simple, if we take the moment to think it
through:
(1) The OA movement's goal is to provide Open Access (OA) to
100%
of the world's peer-reviewed research article output.
(2) The goal of [some] publishers is to preserve the status
quo
-- or the closest approximation to it -- for as long as
possible,
at all costs.
(3) The providers of both the research and the peer review,
in
all disciplines, are the employees of the universities (and
research institutions) worldwide (and the fundees of the
funded
research).
(4) The only way to cover all of OA's target space is for
all
research output, from all universities worldwide, funded and
unfunded, across all disciplines, to be made OA.
(5) OA self-archiving mandates from universities and funders
(39
so far, worldwide) can ensure that all research is made OA.
(6) Some funders (e.g. NIH) -- but *no universities* (e.g.
Harvard) -- have mandated direct university-external
self-archiving (in PubMed Central) instead of direct
university
self-archiving (and central harvesting). This was an
unnecessary
strategic mistake.
(7) University-external, subject-based self-archiving does
not
scale up to cover all of OA output space: it is divergent,
divisive, arbitrary, incoherent and unnecessary.
(8) The way to scale up systematically to capture all of OA
output is for both funders and universities to mandate that
all
research output, in all disciplines, from all universities
worldwide, funded and unfunded, should be self-archived in
each
university's own Institutional Repository (IR). (The
deposits, or
their metadata, can then be externally harvested into
whatever
subject-based, disciplinary, or multidisciplinary central
collections we may desire.)
(9) The universities are the research providers; the
universities
are the co-beneficiaries of showcasing, archiving, auditing,
assessing and maximizing the visibility, usage and impact of
(all) their own research output, funded and unfunded, across
all
disciplines.
(10) The universities are also in the natural and optimal
position to monitor and reward their own employees'
compliance
with both university and funder self-archiving mandates.
(11) It would hence systematically undermine the scaling and
convergence of OA self-archiving mandates onto university
IRs to
transfer responsibility for compliance to an external party
--
the publisher as their employees' proxy self-archiver --
depositing in arbitrary and divergent external
repositories.
(12) Universities and funders should universally mandate
self-archiving directly in each author's own university's
IR;
they should say "no, thank you" to offers of proxy
self-archiving
on behalf of their employees from publishers. External
collections can then be harvested, as desired, from the IRs
that
will then cover 100% of OA output.
[Similar considerations, but on a much lesser scale,
militate
against the strategy of universities out-sourcing the
creation
and management of their IRs and self-archiving policies to
external contractors: accounting, archiving, record-keeping
and
asset management should surely be kept under direct local
control
by universities. There's nothing so complicated or daunting
about
self-archiving and IRs as to require resorting to an
external
service. (More tentatively, I am also sceptical that library
proxy self-archiving rather than direct author
self-archiving is
a wise choice in the long run -- though it is definitely a
useful
option as a start-up supplement, if coupled with a mandate,
and
has been successfully implemented in several cases,
including QUT
and CERN.)]
Stevan Harnad
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, T Scott Plutchak wrote:
> Thank you, Ann, for suggesting this! I've been
puzzling over the
> same thing. Might I suggest that it would also be
useful if you
> could get samples of the messages that the publisher
will send to
> the investigator to alert them that they need to go in
to approve
> the submission? It'll be very helpful as we're
preparing
> information pages for our folks if we can provide them
with
> concrete examples of what to expect.
>
> Scott
>
> T. Scott Plutchak
> Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-liblicense-l--lists.yale.edu on behalf of
Ann Okerson
> Sent: Fri 3/14/2008 11:37 AM
> To: liblicense-l--lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Deposit Mandates as part of Publisher
Services
>
> This message is aimed (primarily but not necessarily
exclusively)
> at the STM publishers who are members of liblicense-l:
>
> If your publishing organization is providing for your
authors the
> service of deposit of their articles according to
various
> mandates, particularly NIH (beginning on 4/7) could you
kindly
> describe the nature or extent of these services by
sending *to
> me* (ann.okerson--yale.edu) a descriptive note of what
and how
> you do this? If you are in the planning stages, can you
write to
> that effect? It will be helpful, from the
institutional end, to
> understand where such services are being or will be
provided,
> outside of universities, as we continue to develop our
own
> protocols. If there is overlap or redundancy, it might
be useful
> to sort that out. If your response should be
confidential at
> this time, please so note.
>
> If there is an interesting set of responses, I'll
summarize here.
>
> Thank you, Ann Okerson/Yale Library
> ann.okerson--yale.edu
|
