I think this is largely a matter of semantics - the nouns 'archive' and
'repository' both imply long term, secure, maintained storage of data;
the term 'open access' means free availability.
If the community is going to continue using those adjectives with one or
other noun, then confusion is bound to result as to the functionality
required. Personally, I see no problem with both functions in a single
repository ... and considerable advantages.
My problem in the idea that there should be a split, with open access
facilitated on the one hand and preservation/archives on the other,
comes - once again - from version control. We already have a situation
where a researcher may deposit a copy of an article in an institutional
archive as well as in one or more subject archives (such as E-LIS);
while all co-authors may do the same. Now we double the trouble with
copies in OA *and* in Preservation Repositories. LOCKSS (Lots of Copies
Keeps Stuff Safe) gone mad.
Peter Suber wrote on this almost exactly 2 years ago: The many-copy
problem and the many-copy solution
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=14).
Despite the title, he does not really have a solution but he does
highlight the problems. The JISC is also concerned and has recently
commissioned research into the control of versions in institutional
repositories.
The issue - knowing whether you are reading the most recent and most
accurate version - remains even when dating or metadata is incorporated.
One answer is bibliographical control, where a single institution - The
British Library, for example - maintains the archive, and legislation is
in place to begin this process. It seems to me that what we need is a
single institutional archive with open access and self-deposit built
into the system.
______________________________
Chris Armstrong
Information Automation Limited
t. (+44) 1974 251302
e. [log in to unmask]
w. www.i-a-l.co.uk
b: http://i-a-l.blogspot.com/
|