Richard Poynder wrote:
> Readers of this list may be interested in a profile of the OU's
> institutional repository (Open Research Online) published in Computer
> Weekly:
> http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/03/10/229777/open-university-stu
> dies-open-access-to-research.htm
>
.... but everything is pointing to the "only 15% of researchers
spontaneously self-archive".
This is the fundamental problem: we all know that the OA concept is
right; we all know that we can search google[1] and find results; we
even know that a few people "get the idea", and deposit...
We also know that we can throw resources at our IR and get a healthy
back-catalog:
"....he harvested between 2,000 and 3,000 items from departmental
databases."
What all these discussions have been revolving around is how to do
something about the 85% of academics who are *not* "spontaneously
self-archiving"
One proposition (and it's just one) is that we should move away from the
connotations with the word "archive", and switch to something more
interactive. People in this camp have been talking about "Campus
Research Information Systems" and "like google-docs" and "similar to CVS"
Is it wrong to investigate alternative paths to a specific goal?
Isn't that what research is all about?
(In the mean time: Those of you without a current IR or an available
CRIS - the Depot is accepting deposits from any academic, and will
transfer them to your IR/CRIS when it is ready :) )
[1] Search google for <"aggregates in flux" instead of in kinship-based
families>: 25 results
--
Ian Stuart.
Developer, the Depot,
EDINA,
The University of Edinburgh.
http://edina.ac.uk/
|