Stevan, I self-archive to ensure my articles are widely read now AND WILL BE
FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. The former without the latter is just
nonsensical.
Charles
Quoting Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, George Macgregor wrote:
>
> > it... seems to make little sense to go to the effort of making
> > information accessible NOW when it could theoretically be inaccessible
> > 24 hours from NOW or even 3 years from NOW...
>
> Please refer to Steve Hitchcock's posting about PRESERV.
>
>
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind06&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&P=14808
>
> As I said from the outset, Eprints and OA are of course (quite naturally
> and without fanfare) attending to small-p preservation (as has Arxiv,
> since its inception in 1991, and CogPrints since its inception in 1997
> -- note that all their contents are still here, with us, in 2006, in
> continuous use, again without any fanfare about large-P Preservation).
> But Preservation is not why they were self-archived!
>
> The point is simple: Preservation is *not* the reason researchers
> self-archive their postprints, which are final, refereed drafts of
> their published articles. Maximising their accessibility and their
> impact is the reason researchers self-archive their postprints. It
> is not those self-archived supplements that require the large-P
> Preservation, it is the published originals.
>
> If researchers self-archive at all, they do not do it in order to
> Preserve
> their articles; they do it in order to increase their article's usage
> and impact. And only 15% of researchers as yet self-archive. The goal
> of OA is to raise that to 15% to 100%. Neither the silly suggestion that
> authors should self-archive in order to Preserve their articles -- nor
> any
> extra work or complications anyone foolishly adds to the self-archiving
> procedure (such as it is, for example, in Eprints IRs today) in the
> interests of Preservation -- will do anything to help raise that 15%
> to 100%: On the contrary, a bad reason for self-archiving and needless
> extra work in self-archiving will only deter self-archiving. And neglect
> of OA for other archiving priorities (e.g., Digital Preservation) are
> the worst.
>
> At the same time, articles in OA IRs *are* being small-p preserved, as
> noted. So that's not a substantive issue either.
>
> The only substantive issue is how to fill OA IRs with 100% of
> institutional OA article output, as soon as possible. (It's already
> vastly overdue and substantial research impact and progress continue
> to be needlessly lost till it happens.)
>
> I have listed many heroic librarians who understand this fully, and
> have been at the forefront of OA efforts and success (e.g., Paula
> Callan, Helene Bosc, Eloy Rodrigues, Derek Law, Susanna Mornati,
> and many, many others). But there are also many in the library community
> who are ignorant of or indifferent to OA, and have other ideas about
> what to do with IRs. Several are discussed in Richard Poynder's
> insightful analysis. And it is a parting of ways with them that
> Richard was proposing to the OA movement (and he may well be right).
>
>
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/03/institutional-repositories-and-little.html
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, George Macgregor wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > > All this has nothing to do with making
> > > information accessible NOW. You have failed to distinguish between
> present
> > > and future accessibility.
> >
> > The point I was making is that the differentiation between 'present'
> and
> > 'future' accessibility is bogus - there no longer is any real
> difference.
> > And if there is no longer a difference, then the proponents of present
> > accessibility should probably be considering future accessibility as a
> > matter of course.
> >
> > I'm sure most will continue to treat such matters as 'a horses for
> courses'
> > situation, like you say. However, it just seems to make little sense
> to go
> > to the effort of making information accessible NOW when it could
> > theoretically be inaccessible 24 hours from NOW or even 3 years from
> NOW -
> > and when some simple technical and administrative measures could have
> been
> > taken to prevent any consequent inaccessibility. It is also appears to
> be
> > inconsistent with Stevan Harnad's definition of 'immediate access',
> which
> > suggests that information be accessible "today, tomorrow and into the
> > future".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > George Macgregor,
> > Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR),
> > Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
> > University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
> > 26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, UK, G1 1XH
> > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4753
> > fax: +44 (0)141 548 4523
> > web: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J.W.T.Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 03 March 2006 17:29
> > > To: George Macgregor
> > > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: preservation vs. Preservation
> > >
> > >
> > > George,
> > >
> > > Comments below.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, George Macgregor wrote:
> > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > > Preservation and access are two different things.
> > > >
> > > > I have to disagree. Preservation is inextricably linked with
> access.
> > > >
> > > > To state that 'preservation and access are two totally different
> things'
> > > is
> > > > - I find - a common misconception.
> > >
> > > I don't suffer from common misconceptions, but I am sometimes
> > > misunderstood.
> > >
> > > > Preservation (with a capital P) is not
> > > > merely about preserving digital objects for posterity as an end in
> > > itself
> > > > (which is, of course, important); it is about preserving the
> digital
> > > > integrity of the object(s) so as to ensure it remains *accessible*
> ad
> > > > infinitum.
> > > >
> > > > Robust Preservation strategies always ensure sufficient
> administrative
> > > > metadata (technical metadata, rights metadata, etc.) is recorded
> because
> > > > without it, user access can theoretically be jeopardised at *any*
> point
> > > in
> > > > the future. The rate of technical and software obsolesce is such
> that
> > > > deposits made to IRs today could - theoretically - be inaccessible
> in
> > > five
> > > > years. Preservation is no longer some triviality that can be
> addressed
> > > far,
> > > > far in the future my 'someone else'. IR administrators / libraries
> have
> > > to
> > > > be in a position to regularly migrate or refresh materials to
> preserve
> > > > continued user access. Their ability to do so is predicated on
> > > preparing
> > > > suitable Preservation strategies.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, to suggest that Preservation entails 'limiting' or
> 'screening'
> > > access
> > > > is - in my opinion - to entirely misinterpret the purpose of
> digital
> > > > preservation. If efforts at attaining '100% OA via 100%
> self-archiving'
> > > are
> > > > not to be in vain, the need for Preservation (with a capital P!)
> should
> > > not
> > > > be pooh-poohed.
> > >
> > > I did not "pooh-pooh" anything. What you say is true but it is not
> > > relevant to what I wrote. All this has nothing to do with making
> > > information accessible NOW. You have failed to distinguish between
> present
> > > and future accessibility.
> > >
> > > To clarify, for the here and now, I believe Preservation is not the
> same
> > > thing as making accessible and those whose main interest is
> accessibility
> > > NOW should not spend too much time on worrying about Preservation.
> Now [at
> > > this time, currently] PDF is an excellent way of making information
> > > available, but I would not suggest it as a preservation format. Since
> > > there has been a prevalence for poor quality metaphors/analogies in
> this
> > > discussion I could say this is a horses for courses situation.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > John Smith.
> >
>
|