Amen.
As one of the authors@ecs Stevan is talking about, I can say I think it is
hard to underestimate the importance of this as a means of satisfying
authors.
While there is an editing phase, it is "their" repository.
Without an editing phase it is "my" repository.
It provides a service for me: I put things there so that I can find them
later; I don't bother with my own publication pages anymore; when I give a
seminar I put the slides there before the seminar and then put the link to
the exact link archive item on the slides; I care much more about what is in
the repository, because I have responsibility... I could go on to use words
like "empowerment", but perhaps that's enough.
The feeling of difference is enormous: instead of it being something that is
an extra imposition that costs me time, it is much clearer it is a useful
service that my organisation is providing for me, and becomes part of my
working structure.
By the way, as Stevan says, if checking is required then checking afterwards
is much the best way, and will then be appreciated by the users, rather than
considered as law enforcement.
Best
Hugh
--
Hugh Glaser, Reader
Dependable Systems & Software Engineering
School of Electronics and Computer Science,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ
Work: +44 (0)23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3045
Mobile: +44 (0)75 9533 4155, Home: +44 (0)23 8061 5652
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/hg
On 24/09/2009 13:18, "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> p On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, J.W.T.Smith wrote:
>
>> We are coming under pressure to speed up the addition of new items to our
>> repository by academics. We use the EPrints package which has a reviewing
>> stage which means items are deposited in a review area and don't become
>> visible in the public repository until they have been checked by an editor.
>> It is being proposed that all depositors be allowed to move items into the
>> public repository with any editing being done later.
>>
>> Does anyone already do this, i.e., allow direct deposit into the public
>> repository without any editorial or quality control checking? If so has it
>> caused any problems?
>>
>> John Smith, Administrator - Kent Academic Repository (KAR) University of
>> Kent.
>
> Yes, direct deposit without a checking phase is an infinitely better
> policy. It is simpler, more satisfying to authors, and avoids needless
> backlogs.
>
> If you want to have a checking phase, it can be done in the background,
> AFTER the item is deposited and already OA to all, and if there are any
> problems, they can be conveyed to the author. But meanwhile the deposit
> is immediately OA. (Users may also occasionally report problems with a
> deposit, and that too can be conveyed to the author when the time comes.)
>
> At Southampton, we started with a checking buffer, but we very soon
> phased it out as an unnecessary and inefficient disincentive to authors.
>
> The EPrints software is designed so you can easily configure it to
> omit the checking phase.
>
> Stevan Harnad
|