I would tend to agree with the majority of previous commentators that 
(a) it is always necessary to state precisely what is and is not 
peer-reviewed, whether or not non-peer-reviewed content is allowed in a 
particular repository or departmental collection; (b) that negotiations 
between repository/library and department will differ in each case, but 
that the latter will usually need to have the last say because the 
collection's whole purpose is to serve the subject area about which they 
are the experts; (c) the repository (in many cases the library) will 
need to come to its own policy decision based on internal negotiations 
and policy requirements within that particular university. This is based 
on my own first-hand experience as a repository manager in the past.

That said, it seems unwise to make generalisations for all institutions 
as to whether they should keep non-peer-reviewed materials or not. Their 
purposes in having repositories may differ. Different departments will 
differ in their views. The policy-making structure of universities is 
highly variable. But it is inevitable true that peer-reviewed materials 
will continue to hold the prestige they have hitherto enjoyed, purely 
because of that status, and in order to preserve it, the peer-review 
status (like any other metadata) should be accurately reported, at the 
very least. The issue of grey literature is a separate one and we must 
be prepared for different repositories to take different decisions about 
whether and where it will be made available online. This is part of the 
wider OA debate about content other than scholarly works and the locus 
of deposit for that content, upon which opinions differ substantially. 
The historical examples cited make it apparent that not all valuable 
intellectual output has been peer-reviewed. However, the locus for that 
content is clearly at issue. Does a particular repository exist to serve 
the mainstream OA agenda or not? Some, such as learning materials 
repositories, do not. Are we then in a position to legislate for the 
others, that may seek to work in the interests of OA in a way that we 
might disagree with but in any case cannot control?


Talat Chaudhri

FrederickFriend wrote:
> The JISC Scholarly Communication Group recently commissioned a Report 
> from Key Perspectives Ltd on access for SME staff to grey literature. 
> One of the conclusions in this Report is that "the visibility of 
> university-produced grey literature is very poor" (the full Report 
> will be available before long on the JISC web-site). Please do not 
> interpret this message as JISC policy, but it strikes me that the 
> inclusion in repositories of reports and working papers which have 
> received some academic endorsement without being peer-reviewed in the 
> conventional sense would help SMEs. This type of content could be of 
> value in reviving all of our national economies. What is important is 
> that the metadata attached to each repository item should include a 
> quality-control indicator, e.g. fully peer-reviewed, external 
> validation without peer review, internal validation etc.
>  
> Fred Friend
> JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
> Land-line +44 1494 563168
> Mobile +44 7747 627738

-- 
Dr Talat Chaudhri
------------------------------------------------------------
Research Officer
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, Great Britain
Telephone: +44 (0)1225 385105    Fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Skype: talat.chaudhri
Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/t.chaudhri/
------------------------------------------------------------