This is an interesting thread. It opens yet another can of worms (if
that is not over stating it). To me, it justifies the JISC (and others)
funding of this area. There are endless questions, and we can feel very
alone when we try and answer them.
On the one hand, "it's the full-text stupid" so keep the metadata simple
(like fickr), on the other, we want to hold an academic's full output
(for their CV) and at the same time, be able to limit it for just their
output while at this institution, for the REF and the management
reports, satisfying both will require good metadata. (argh!)
We talk about new academics now, bud what happens in five years time
when they move job again. How will they get their full CV then? by
re-entering it all? by exporting/importing? Do we allow this? Is it
allowed by those who claim copyright ownership?
I want to be a sheep. I want to follow what the rest are doing. I want
to take advice from RSP/SHERPA. JISC take note!
Regards
Chris
Piegza, Amanda M. wrote:
> Thank you all for your replies regarding this topic. I didn’t state this
> in my initial post but, I DO want to put up the full text for faculty,
> even when their research was done elsewhere, I was just unsure if
> publishers would consider that self-archiving. However, your responses
> have given me a lot to think about. One of the reasons I really do want
> new faculty to put up all of their works is because of what one of you
> stated, that if we don’t, then they’ll not find the repository as
> beneficial and just want their faculty pages up instead. Plus that
> initial rapport we establish with new faculty will be hard to change if
> they think we’re ‘hard to work with’ or otherwise non-helpful. Thanks
> again for all the posts, your thoughts are appreciated!
>
> -Amanda
>
>
>
> *From:* Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Delasalle, Jenny
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: new faculty and IR publications
>
>
>
> Indeed: and the danger of saying to authors that we only want works they
> have written whilst in employment at our own institution is that they
> won't bother to deposit with us but will continue to maintain their own
> lists on webpages and sites external to the University, because at least
> there they can be comprehensive about their own careers... and where
> they can presumably continue to forget about the copyright agreements
> they are signing as their pages will be part of the anarchic web rather
> than a structured resource. (Which will make little difference to
> Google's ability to find their pages, particularly for those with
> prestigious reputations, whose work we particularly want in the repository.)
>
>
>
> I think the crux is that it depends on what resources you have to
> mediate deposits and add the metadata yourselves (asking authors to do
> it on deposit is not going to encourage them to deposit) and what
> purpose you want your repository to serve. If it is meant as a place to
> showcase full text items by your authors, does it really matter where
> they were working at the time they wrote them? But if you want a
> repository as something to record what has been written by your
> employees during their term of employment (a management tool), well
> that's a different purpose that might require different processes and
> resourcing.
>
>
>
> Jen
>
>
>
|