To Bill Hubbard, SHERPA:
Dear Bill,
Your Oct 9 blog posting -- "Using institutional repositories to raise
compliance" -- is a very welcome one:
"funders [should] agree a joint deposit-requirement and suggest this
to be adopted by institutional repositories, in exchange for mandates
requiring deposit within institutional repositories"
http://researchcommunications.jiscinvolve.org/2009/10/09/using-institutional-repositories-to-raise-compliance/
This problem has already been discussed explicitly for years, and this
very solution has already been made suggested many times, but so far
ignored. Let's hope its time has now at last come!
(I've posted the commentary below to your blog, but your blog's spam
filter may block it because it tries to detect spam by the number of
URLs. If so, could you post it for me?)
Chrs, Stevan
DEPOSIT INSTITUTIONALLY, HARVEST CENTRALLY
Apart from the tiny number (about 60) that have already mandated
deposit, institutions are the "slumbering giant" of OA, until they
wake up and mandate the deposit of their own research output in their
own IRs. Not all research output is funded, but all research output is
institutional: Hence institutions are the universal providers of all
OA's target content. Although not many funders mandate deposit either,
the few that already do (about 40) can help wake the slumbering giant,
because one funder mandate impinges on the research output of fundees
at many different institutions. But there is a fundamental underlying
asymmetry governing where funders should mandate deposit: As Prof.
Bernard Rentier (founder of EOS [EnablingOpenScholarship] and Rector
of U. Liège, one of the first universities to adopt an institutional
deposit mandate) has recently stressed, convergent funder mandates
that require deposit in the fundee's own IR will facilitate the
adoption of deposit mandates by institutions (the slumbering giant),
whereas divergent funder mandates that require CR deposit (or are
indifferent between CR and IR deposit) will only capture the research
they fund, while needlessly handicapping (or missing the opportunity
to facilitate) efforts to get institutional deposit mandates adopted
and complied with too. The optimal solution for both institutions and
funders is therefore: "Deposit institutionally, harvest
centrally" (with the help of the SWORD protocol for automatic export
from institutional to central repositories).
Central vs. Distributed Archives (thread began Jun 1999)
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0290.html
Central versus institutional self-archiving (thread began Nov 2003)
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3168.html
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
(Sept 2006)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates (Mar 2008)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html
Batch Deposits in Institutional Repositories (the SWORD protocol) (Jul
2008)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/431-guid.html
Waking OA's Slumbering Giant: Why Locus-of-Deposit Matters for Open
Access and Open Access Mandates (Feb 2009)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/522-guid.html
Repositories: Institutional or Central? (Feb 2009)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/519-guid.html
EOS (EnablingOpenScholarship)
http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/j_6/home
Some of the prior postings on this topic:
http://bit.ly/cBnRh
http://bit.ly/2PXqU9
Stevan Harnad
|