On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Delasalle, Jenny wrote:
> researchers are probably not using repository cross-searching
> sites... would they use a reconstructed or parallel journal either? That's
> another question and almost covered by other debate under this subject
> although not quite because I do appreciate that a researcher would rather
> read an open access version than not to read an article at all, but the
> matter surely is, how would s/he come across the open access version? I
> would say through an ordinary Google search, after having found the
> published version's details and that s/he did not have an appropriate
> subscription... judging by visitor behaviours on our repository, anyway.
Put more content into OA IRs (by mandating deposit), filling those OA
IRs and thereby making OA IR harvesting and search worthwhile (instead
of the 5-15% potluck it is now), and I promise you there will be
plenty of harvester search engines -- far more powerful than the
OAIster demo (before its time originally, but now obsolescent as an OA
hopeful, morphing sadly into an OSLC toll-access service) -- will
spawn to provide the service.
For a preview, look citebase and citeseer, to get a taste of the
powerful functionality that is only awaiting the provision of its
target content in order to provide the raw material and the
inspiration for a generation of brilliant graduate students,
developing innovative consortial OA services.
And then please let's stop fussing about trivial matters of form
(including search; and blinkered nonsolutions to nonproblems, like
"reconstructed" and "parallel journals") and get down at last to
solving the real problem, which is providing access to the missing
target OA content. The practical solution itself is already known and
proven: institutions and funders need to mandate Green OA
self-archiving for all their refereed research output...
Cordially,
Your ever-wearier Archivangelist.
|