Dear Stevan,
Most authors do not self-archive their publications spontaneously. So they must be mandated. But, apart from a few, the mandators do not mandate the authors. In a world according to you they themselves must be supermandated. And so on. This approach only works if somewhere in the mandating hierarchy there is an enlightened echelon that is able and willing to start the mandating cascade.
To create such a cascade one needs water (i.e. arguments) and a steep rocky slope (i.e. good conditions). The pro OA arguments do not seem to be the problem. In all my discussions over the last decade authors, managers and librarians alike agreed that the future should be OA also thanks to you, our driving OA archevangelist.
So, it must be the conditions that are lacking. This awareness brought me to the writing of an article about these failing conditions. Only if we are able to create better conditions mandates will emerge and be successful on a broad scale. A fortiori, this will make mandates superfluous.
Recommendation 1: Transferring the copyright in a publication has become a relic of the past; nowadays a “licence to publish” is sufficient. The author retains the copyrights. Institutions should make the use of such a licence part of their institutional policy.
Upgrade Harvard's Opt-Out Copyright Retention Mandate: Add a No-Opt-Out Deposit Clause
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html
Recommendation 2: The classic impact factor for a journal is not a good yardstick for the prestige of an author. Modern digital technology makes it possible to tailor the measurement system to the author. Institutions should, when assessing scientists and scholars, switch to this type of measurement and should also promote its further development.
Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14418/
Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. In Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13804/
Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer Rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi:10.3354/esep00088 The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15619/
Recommendation 3: The traditional subscription model for circulating publications is needlessly complex and expensive. Switching to Open Access, however, requires co-ordination that goes beyond the level of individual institutions. Supra-institutional organisations, for example the European University Association, should take the necessary initiative.
Stevan Harnad wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:32:17 -0500
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: JISC/SIRIS "Subject and Institutional Repositories Interactions Study"
On 30-Nov-08, at 9:08 AM, Neil Jacobs (JISC) wrote:
Thanks Stevan,
You're right, of course, the report does not cover policies. The brief for
the work was to look for practical ways that subject/funder and
institutional repositories can work together within the constraints of the
current policies of their host organisations. There are discussions to be
had at the policy level, but we felt that there were also practical things
to be done now, without waiting for that.
Hi Neil,
I was referring to the JISC report's recommendations, which mention a number
of things, but not how to get the repositories filled (despite noting the
problem that they are empty).
It seems to me that the practical problems of what to do with -- and how to
work together with -- empty repositories are trumped by the practical
problem of how to get the repositories *filled*.
Moreover, the solution to the practical problem of how the repositories
(both institutional and subject/funder) can work together is by no means
independent of the practical problem of how to get them filled -- including
the all-important question of the *locus of direct deposit*:
The crucial question (for both policy and practice) is whether direct
deposit is to be divergent and competitive (as it is now, being sometimes
institutional and sometimes central) or convergent and synergistic (as it
can and ought to be), by systematically mandating convergent institutional
deposit, reinforced by both institutional and funder mandates, followed by
central harvesting -- rather than divergent, competing mandates requiring
deposits willy-nilly, resulting in confusion, understandable resistance to
divergent or double deposit, and, most important, the failure to capitalize
on funder mandates so as to reinforce institutional mandates.
Institutions, after all, are the producers of *all *refereed research
output, in all subjects, and whether funded or unfunded. Get all the
institutions to provide OA to all their own refereed research output, and
you have 100% OA (and all the central harvests from it that you like).
As it stands, however, funder and institutional mandates are pulling
researchers needlessly in divergent directions. And (many) funder mandates
in particular, instead of adding their full weight behind the drive to get
all refereed research to be made OA, are thinking, parochially, only of
their own funded fiefdom, by arbitrarily insisting on direct deposit in
central repositories that could easily harvest instead from the
institutional repositories, if convergent institutional deposit were
mandated by all -- with the bonus that all research, and all institutions,
would be targeted by all mandates.
It is not too late to fix this. It is still early days. There is no need to
take the status quo for granted, especially given that most repositories are
still empty.
I hope the reply will not be the usual (1) "*What about researchers whose
institutions still don't have IRs?*": Let those author's deposit
provisionally in DEPOT for now, from which they can be automatically
exported to their IRs as soon as they are created, using the SWORD protocol.
With all mandates converging systematically on IRs, you can be sure that
this will greatly facilitate and accelerate both IR creation and IR deposit
mandate adoption. But with just unfocussed attempts to accommodate to the
recent, random, and unreflecting status quo, all that is guaranteed is to
perpetuate it.
Nor is the right reply (2) "*Since all repositories, institutional and
subject/funder, are OAI-interoperable, it doesn't matter where authors
deposit!*" Yes, they are interoperable, and yes, it would not matter where
authors deposited -- if they were indeed all depositing in one or the other.
But most authors are not depositing, and that is the point. Moreover, most
institutions are not mandating deposit at all yet and that is the other
point. Funder mandates can help induce institutions -- the universal
research providers -- to create IRs and adopt institutional deposit mandates
if the funder mandates are convergent on IR deposit. But funder mandates
have the opposite effect if they instead insist on central deposit. So the
fact that both types of repository are interoperable is beside the point.
Une puce à l'oreille (not to be confused with a gadfly),
Stevan Harnad
Neil
Stevan Harnad wrote:
The /JISC/SIRIS "Report of the Subject and Institutional Repositories
Interactions Study"/ <
http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/259/1/siris-report-nov-2008.pdf>(November
2008) "/was commissioned by JISC to produce a set of practical
recommendations for steps that can be taken to improve the interactions
between institutional and subject repositories in the UK/" but it fails to
make clear the single most important reason why Institutional Repositories'
"/desired 'critical mass' of content is far from having been achieved/."
The following has been repeatedly demonstrated (1) in cross-national,
cross-disciplinary surveys (by Alma Swan <
http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/openaccessarchive/index.html>, uncited in
the report) on what authors /state/ that they will and won't do and (2) in
outcome studies (by Arthur Sale <
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/authors/Sale,_AHJ.html>, likewise uncited in
the report) on what authors /actually do/, confirming the survey findings:
*Most authors will not deposit until and unless their universities
and/or their funders make deposit mandatory
<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/>. But if and when
deposit is made mandatory, over 80% will deposit, and deposit
willingly. (A further 15% will deposit reluctantly, and 5% will
not comply with the mandate at all.) In contrast, the spontaneous
(unmandated) deposit rate is and remains at about 15%, for years
now (and adding incentives and assistance but no mandate only
raises this deposit rate to about 30%).*
The JISC/SIRIS report merely states: "/Whether deposit of content is
mandatory is a decision that will be made by each institution/," but it does
not even list the necessity of mandating deposit as one of its
recommendations, even though it is the crucial determinant of whether or not
the institutional repository ever manages to attract its target content.
Nor does the JISC/SIRIS report indicate how institutional and funder
mandates reinforce one another <
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html>, nor how to
make both mandates and locus of deposit systematically convergent and
complementary (deposit institutionally, harvest centrally <
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html>) rather
than divergent and competitive -- though surely that is the essence of
"/Subject and Institutional Repositories Interactions/."
There are now 58 deposit mandates already adopted worldwide (28 from
universties/faculties, including Southampton <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=University%20of%20Southampton%20School%20of%20Electronics%20and%20Computer%20Science>,
Glasgow <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=University%20of%20Glasgow>,
Liège <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=Universit%C3%A9%20de%20Li%C3%A8ge>,
Harvard <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20of%20Arts%20and%20Sciences>
and Stanford <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=Stanford%20University%20School%20of%20Education>,
and 30 from funders, including 6/7 Research Councils UK <
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/outputs/access/default.htm>, European
Research Council <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=European%20Research%20Council%20%28ERC%29>and
the US National Institutes of Health <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=National%20Institutes%20of%20Health%20%28NIH%29>)
plus at least 11 known mandate proposals pending (including a unanimous
recommendation from the European Universities Association <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=European%20University%20Association%20%28EUA%29>
council, for its 791 member universities in 46 countries, plus a
recommendation to the European Commission from the European Heads of
Research Councils <
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=European%20Research%20Advisory%20Board%20%28EURAB%29
).
It is clear now that mandated OA self-archiving is the way that the world
will reach universal OA at long last. Who will lead and who will follow will
depend on who grasps this, at long last, and takes the initiative.
Otherwise, there's not much point in giving or taking advice on the
interactions of empty repositories...
Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C.,
O'Brien, A., Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S.
(2005) Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal
content in UK further and higher education
<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000/>. /Learned Publishing/, 18
(1). pp. 25-40.
*Stevan Harnad <http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/>*