RE�: Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
I am afraid the ad hominem accusation was directed the wrong way. Let me review points 1-6: 1. Librarians in institutions that have IRs can recover those articles from NIH automatically. A simple script will do. 2. ? 3. ? Personally, i would hope for funders to develop their own depositories. Libraries can retrieve the papers from their authors automatically. A simple script will do. 4. It may fail to reinforce, but it does not prevent... The mystery of this claim remains. Roughly it says: if it does not support, it is against... 5. ?? 6. Translation of convergent and coordinated (although highly distributed and somewhat anarchic in nature): my (SH) way. Interesting final answer from Harnad: many words and little substance. Oh well... jcg Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 21:28 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. (1) because it forces authors whose institutions have an institutional mandate to deposit twice; (2) because it forces institutions that do not have an institutional mandate to propose requiring their (NIH) authors to deposit twice; (3) because, being much-imitated, it encourages other funders to likewise mandate central deposit, which forces more authors to deposit twice, or even more often, in ever more repositories; (4) because it fails to reinforce the adoption of institutional mandates, and hence fails to reinforce the self-archiving of unfunded institutional research output; (5) because it makes institutional self-archiving harder rather than easier, and makes institutional author resistance to institutional self-archiving mandates more probable rather than less probable; (6) because it misses the opportunity for a convergent and coordinated joint transition to universal OA, with the help of research funders and the providers of all research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded: the institutions. And all completely needlessly. For mandating direct central deposit entails no functional gain whatsoever over mandating institutional deposit and central harvesting, only needless loss, both in potential OA and in OA mandate growth, for the 6 reasons stated above (all, and more, stated explicitly in the links cited and in previous postings). And now I shall stop replying to Jean-Claude's postings which, as has happened before, have waxed more and more shrill and ad hominem with each iteration: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4747.html Stevan Harnad On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I ask for an explanation about what appears like a logical gap to me. All I get in response is a series of references which reiterate the same thesis over and over. This must be Stevan Harnad's notion of what a civil debate must be like... It goes roughly like this: I (SH) am right. If they disagree it is because they have not understood. So I must repeat And repeat And repeat until they either shut up (allusion to wasted bandwidth, for example) or they agree (and hopefully just fade away). Sorry, my dear harnad, but this is not my notion of a civil debate. And I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 19:49 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policyhttp://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04L=AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUMF=lP=92016 (Oct 2004) Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05L=american-scientist-open-access-forumF=lP=2453 (Jan 2005) National Institutes of Health: Report on the NIH Public Access Policy. In: Department of Health and Human Serviceshttp://publicaccess.nih.gov/Final_Report_20060201.pdf (Jan 2006, reporting 3.8% compliance rate after 8
Re: RE�: Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
This discussion reminds me of the debates between the Peoples Liberation Front for Judea and the Judean Peoples Liberation Front in the film Life of Brian. As long as the deposited material is searchable using OAI-PMH, I, as a user, am indifferent what repository it sits in. Funders are entitled to insist where the outputs go. They will often want it in their repository so they can keep track both of everything they have funded and also how many downloads such items receive. Stevan may disagree, but I don't think requiring deposit for funded outputs in one particular repository reduces the appeal for IRs for research outputs. Does Stevan have any evidence, e.g., survey results, to support his views? To deposit in both is anyway easy. What is important is that OA marches on, not where the OA material appears. Charles On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:37:38 -0400 Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I am afraid the ad hominem accusation was directed the wrong way. Let me review points 1-6: 1. Librarians in institutions that have IRs can recover those articles from NIH automatically. A simple script will do. 2. ? 3. ? Personally, i would hope for funders to develop their own depositories. Libraries can retrieve the papers from their authors automatically. A simple script will do. 4. It may fail to reinforce, but it does not prevent... The mystery of this claim remains. Roughly it says: if it does not support, it is against... 5. ?? 6. Translation of convergent and coordinated (although highly distributed and somewhat anarchic in nature): my (SH) way. Interesting final answer from Harnad: many words and little substance. Oh well... jcg Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 21:28 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. (1) because it forces authors whose institutions have an institutional mandate to deposit twice; (2) because it forces institutions that do not have an institutional mandate to propose requiring their (NIH) authors to deposit twice; (3) because, being much-imitated, it encourages other funders to likewise mandate central deposit, which forces more authors to deposit twice, or even more often, in ever more repositories; (4) because it fails to reinforce the adoption of institutional mandates, and hence fails to reinforce the self-archiving of unfunded institutional research output; (5) because it makes institutional self-archiving harder rather than easier, and makes institutional author resistance to institutional self-archiving mandates more probable rather than less probable; (6) because it misses the opportunity for a convergent and coordinated joint transition to universal OA, with the help of research funders and the providers of all research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded: the institutions. And all completely needlessly. For mandating direct central deposit entails no functional gain whatsoever over mandating institutional deposit and central harvesting, only needless loss, both in potential OA and in OA mandate growth, for the 6 reasons stated above (all, and more, stated explicitly in the links cited and in previous postings). And now I shall stop replying to Jean-Claude's postings which, as has happened before, have waxed more and more shrill and ad hominem with each iteration: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4747.html Stevan Harnad On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I ask for an explanation about what appears like a logical gap to me. All I get in response is a series of references which reiterate the same thesis over and over. This must be Stevan Harnad's notion of what a civil debate must be like... It goes roughly like this: I (SH) am right. If they disagree it is because they have not understood. So I must repeat And repeat And repeat until they either shut up (allusion to wasted bandwidth, for example) or they agree (and hopefully just fade away). Sorry, my dear harnad, but this is not my notion of a civil debate. And I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. Jean-Claude Guédon
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
Stevan Harnad writes And an author having to import and deposit every one of his own institutional outputs into his own institutional repository No this can be partly automated at today's level of technology and data infrastructure. The rest can be done by IR staff. Future scholarly communciation infrastructure could almost fully automate the process. because it was deposited institution-externally instead of institutionally is not extra work (for every author, and institution)? If you require the deposit at the author's IR you will create work for the funders. Funders don't like to mandate extra work for themselves. Isn't the gist of the OAI concept that central service-providers should harvest from distributed local content-providers, rather than vice versa? I am not sure if there is an OAI concept. There is an OAI-PMH protocol, it talks about metadata being harvested from one computer system to another. Whether the first computer or the second computer is a central service provider is of no interest to the protocol. (Or should everyone be depositing directly in Google, and then harvesting back?) AFAIK, Google does not accept deposits. Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel skype: thomaskrichel
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
Let me add something that I have said repeatedly in many forums and without contradiction: Universities are delinquent in their duty of public accountability if they do not make all their research outputs which are not specifically commissioned by private enterprise publicly accessible on the Internet. One simply cannot say the same for any `central' or better `subject' repository, for which deposit is simply desirable. Funders can nominate where they want the research they fund to be deposited, but in reality, to do so other than in the institutional repository simply creates extra work for everyone, and conflicts of interest. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 2:58 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against institution-external OA repositories and then proceed to state point 4? To repeat: No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive against MANDATING DIRECT DEPOSIT in institution-external OA repositories. (Deposit mandates should be convergent, on institutional OA repositories, not divergent; then institution-external OA repositories can harvest the deposits from the institutional OA repositories.) Reason: To facilitate instead of retarding the scaling up to universal OA. (It would save readers a lot of time and bandwidth if those rushing to proclaim Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy would first take the trouble to understand what Harnad is saying on OA deposit and APA policy...) Stevan Harnad
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
Arthur Sale writes ~SUniversities are delinquent in their duty of public accountability if they do not make all their research outputs which are not specifically commissioned by private enterprise publicly accessible on the Internet.~T That's what you think is their duty. There are plenty of publicly funded bodies that don't make their documents publicly available on the Internet. Think of the OECD, or the UK Ordenance Survey for example. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter for debate. Funders can nominate where they want the research they fund to be deposited, but in reality, to do so other than in the institutional repository simply creates extra work for everyone, Not for everyone. If a funder has a repository it is safest for them to require deposit in their repository. It is otherwise cumbersome to check that the deposit is there and stays there. If the university wants a copy they can download it from the funders' site. and conflicts of interest. What conflicts? Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel skype: thomaskrichel
RE�: Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
I believe Arthur is right on his first point. This said, the issue of university autonomy varies enormously from one country to another and that must also be taken into account. In some countries, universities simply do not have the needed margin of maneuver to create institutional repositories with a mandate. For example, The French case should be examined in this regard, especially at a time when there is a national debate about the issue of university autonomy. The second point is treated too rapidly. The French case, once again, provides a counter example. In France, it appears that a national, central organization is going to act as a national repository. This points to a situation where the issue of accountability is transferred to a national institution. Many centralistic countries may opt for this kind of solution. The last point is way too rapid. The distributed solution of IRs remains flaky when it comes to retrieving articles. I know because I try to use these resources myself and sometimes I do not find documents which I know are there. Furthermore, researchers in a given discipline like to go to a one-stop entry point to find their documentation. Perhaps Google will be that universal entry point some time in the future, but this is not presently the case, and facing this prospect brings up othe rissues related to monopolistic power which i do not want to broach here but which should nonetheless stay in the background. For biomedical researchers, knowing that Pubmed is the place for bibliographic searches *and* document retrieval is a clear advantage. and this point, I think, amply justifies the decision by NIH to have the research articles they finance deposited in their depository. Furthermore, the NIH deposit does not prevent a parallel deposit in the local IR. So the conflict of interest appears non-existent or minimal in practice. Finally, so long as solutions roughly work in the same direction, let us agree to support them all. Time for refinements will come later. As the IETF people say in the Internet world, what we need is rough consensus and working code! To repeat myself, let us avoid the narcissism of minor differences. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Arthur Sale List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 03:10 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy Let me add something that I have said repeatedly in many forums and without contradiction: Universities are delinquent in their duty of public accountability if they do not make all their research outputs which are not specifically commissioned by private enterprise publicly accessible on the Internet. One simply cannot say the same for any 'central' or better 'subject' repository, for which deposit is simply desirable. Funders can nominate where they want the research they fund to be deposited, but in reality, to do so other than in the institutional repository simply creates extra work for everyone, and conflicts of interest. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 2:58 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against institution-external OA repositories and then proceed to state point 4? To repeat: No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive against MANDATING DIRECT DEPOSIT in institution-external OA repositories. (Deposit mandates should be convergent, on institutional OA repositories, not divergent; then institution-external OA repositories can harvest the deposits from the institutional OA repositories.) Reason: To facilitate instead of retarding the scaling up to universal OA. (It would save readers a lot of time and bandwidth if those rushing to proclaim Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy would first take the trouble to understand what Harnad is saying on OA deposit and APA policy...) Stevan Harnad
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Thomas Krichel kric...@openlib.org wrote: Arthur Sale: Funders can nominate where they want the research they fund to be deposited, but in reality, to do so other than in the institutional repository simply creates extra work for everyone, Not for everyone. If a funder has a repository it is safest for them to require deposit in their repository. It is otherwise cumbersome to check that the deposit is there and stays there. If the university wants a copy they can download it from the funders' site. And an author having to import and deposit every one of his own institutional outputs into his own institutional repository because it was deposited institution-externally instead of institutionally is not extra work (for every author, and institution)? Isn't the gist of the OAI concept that central service-providers should harvest from distributed local content-providers, rather than vice versa? (Or should everyone be depositing directly in Google, and then harvesting back?) Stevan Harnad
RE�: Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
Leaving aside the bandwidth-wasting remarks about the inability of people to read what Harnad writes, I still find Harnad's answer unsatisfactory. The reason is that he and I agree that a repository without a mandate is ineffective. Consequently, arguing that one is not against institution-external OA depositories while driving against mandating direct deposit is more than a little disingenuous. Both Harnad and I know that, without mandates, the depository will not fill beyond 15%. Fighting against the mandate is tantamount to ensuring ineffectiveness, which is of course what Harnad wishes for these institutional-external OA depositories. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: mer. 23/07/2008 12:57 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against institution-external OA repositories and then proceed to state point 4? To repeat: No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive against MANDATING DIRECT DEPOSIT in institution-external OA repositories. (Deposit mandates should be convergent, on institutional OA repositories, not divergent; then institution-external OA repositories can harvest the deposits from the institutional OA repositories.) Reason: To facilitate instead of retarding the scaling up to universal OA. (It would save readers a lot of time and bandwidth if those rushing to proclaim Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy would first take the trouble to understand what Harnad is saying on OA deposit and APA policy...) Stevan Harnad Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: mar. 22/07/2008 15:44 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote in SOAF: I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. (1) No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive for mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories instead of institution-external ones -- into which the institutional repository contents can then be harvested. (2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of OA's target research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, institutions and countries). (3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and monitor the deposit of all their own research output (funded and unfunded, across all disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories. (4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and reinforce institutional OA mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them, so as to facilitate a coherent transition to universal OA. Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of central services, which are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor diminished in the least by the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris completely overlooks th real problem of OA, which is getting the content provided. Convergent institutional and funder mandates will facilitate and accelerate this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly complicate and retard it. (APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500 surcharge for institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green on immediate deposit in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it has been since 2002.) The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html Stevan Harnad On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only sensible locus for Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He says we must fill the institutional repositories first. He also claims that any kind of service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc, CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC, European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take care of itself. The proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding harvesting from IRs to PMC. Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the policy of the APA (American Psychological Association), which wishes to charges authors USD 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves standing an earlier policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR for free. Given the APA stance, is it conceivable
RE�: Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
One more exercise of turning in circles. The main point is that the NIH mandate does not affect at all the way in which institutional repositories develop. If it did, I would like to have very precise and concrete examples... Let's go once more: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. And, as it is repeated twice further on in Harnad's answer, one must assume it is one of his strong but mysterious convictions that we must all follow or be treated as heretics. The NIH mandate is quite effective as is. No need to spend so much time to tweak it further. Saying that we must deposit first and think about retrieval later is really not good planning. In fact it is quite naive. If they shop in PMC, why could they not search through PMC as well? The reference to direct deposit in Google is beside the point, of course. If it is an attempt at humour or irony, it is just that: an attempt. Researchers use PM to find articles, then go to PMC to retrieve those articles that are in OA. Were they in other deposits, the linkage would be more complex and more fragile. Finally, Harnad's conclusion is the one I was hoping to see: either you follow my way very narrowly or you contribute to slowing down the progress of OA. In other times and places, i suspect I would end up on a wood pile for ultimate purification of my soul... Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 13:51 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I agree that a repository without a mandate is ineffective. Consequently, arguing that one is not against institution-external OA depositories while driving against mandating direct deposit is more than a little disingenuous. Perhaps if it is shorter, it will register: (1) I am and have always been an ardent and vocal supporter of NIH's self-archiving mandate (2) I am arguing for one tiny but crucial change in its implementational detail: stimulate deposit in IRs and harvest to PMC, rather than direct deposit in PMC (3) Purpose: To facilitate universal institutional mandates, covering all OA output, in all fields, funded and unfunded Fighting against the mandate is tantamount to ensuring ineffectiveness which is of course what Harnad wishes for these institutional-external OA depositories. I have no idea what disingenuous motives Jean-Claude is attributing to me, or why. I am not fighting against the NIH mandate, I am fighting to make it more effective. The distributed solution of IRs remains flaky when it comes to retrieving articles. Let's get the articles deposited in there and we'll see how flaky retrieval proves to be. researchers in a given discipline like to go to a one-stop entry point to find their documentation. Fine, let them shop at PMC. But let direct deposit be in the IR, with PMC harvesting therefrom. Perhaps Google will be that universal entry point some time in the future, but this is not presently the case... Wherever OA content is deposited, that is where harvesters -- such as Google, Oaister, Scirus, Scopus, Web Of Science, Citeseer, Citebase -- or PMC -- can and will get it. Or do you think we should be depositing directly in google too? For biomedical researchers, knowing that PubMed is the place for bibliographic searches *and* document retrieval is a clear advantage. [this] amply justifies the decision by NIH to have the research articles they finance deposited in their depository. PM is not the same as PMC. PM links to PMC. And PMC contains only the articles that have been made OA. Mandating OA is amply justified. Harvesting into PMC is amply justified. Mandating direct deposit in PMC instead of IRs is arbitrary, has no intrinsic justification, and is counterproductive for the growth of the rest of OA (across institutions and disciplines, funded and unfunded) Furthermore, the NIH deposit does not prevent a parallel deposit in the local IR. If the problem were preventing deposits, rather than requiring them, we would not need any sort of mandate. The point is that institutions are the research-providers -- of allresearch, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded. Funder mandates need to facilitate institutional mandates, not complicate with them. Finally, so long as solutions roughly work in the same direction, let us agree to support them all. Moving roughly in the direction of OA has already taken a decade and a half. Let us resolve needless complications that simply delay it more. Stevan Harnad
Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy (Oct 2004) Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy! (Jan 2005) National Institutes of Health: Report on the NIH Public Access Policy. In: Department of Health and Human Services (Jan 2006, reporting 3.8% compliance rate after 8 months for its first, non-mandatory deposit policy) Central versus institutional self-archiving (Sep 2006) Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?(Sep 2006) THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally (Jan 2008) Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally (Jan 2008) Yet Another Reason for Institutional OA Mandates: To Reinforce and Monitor Compliance With Funder OA Mandates (Feb 2008) How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates (Mar 2008) One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind (Mar 2008) NIH Invites Recommendations on How to Implement and Monitor Compliance with Its OA Self-Archiving Mandate (Apr 2008) Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central Repositories (Jun 2008) On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: One more exercise of turning in circles. The main point is that the NIH mandate does not affect at all the way in which institutional repositories develop. If it did, I would like to have very precise and concrete examples... Let's go once more: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. And, as it is repeated twice further on in Harnad's answer, one must assume it is one of his strong but mysterious convictions that we must all follow or be treated as heretics. The NIH mandate is quite effective as is. No need to spend so much time to tweak it further. Saying that we must deposit first and think about retrieval later is really not good planning. In fact it is quite naive. If they shop in PMC, why could they not search through PMC as well? The reference to direct deposit in Google is beside the point, of course. If it is an attempt at humour or irony, it is just that: an attempt. Researchers use PM to find articles, then go to PMC to retrieve those articles that are in OA. Were they in other deposits, the linkage would be more complex and more fragile. Finally, Harnad's conclusion is the one I was hoping to see: either you follow my way very narrowly or you contribute to slowing down the progress of OA. In other times and places, i suspect I would end up on a wood pile for ultimate purification of my soul... Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 13:51 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I agree that a repository without a mandate is ineffective. Consequently, arguing that one is not against institution-external OA depositories while driving against mandating direct deposit is more than a little disingenuous. Perhaps if it is shorter, it will register: (1) I am and have always been an ardent and vocal supporter of NIH's self-archiving mandate (2) I am arguing for one tiny but crucial change in its implementational detail: stipulate deposit in IRs and harvest to PMC, rather than direct deposit in PMC (3) Purpose: To facilitate universal institutional mandates, covering all OA output, in all fields, funded and unfunded Fighting against the mandate is tantamount to ensuring ineffectiveness which is of course what Harnad wishes for these institutional-external OA depositories. I have no idea what disingenuous motives Jean-Claude is attributing to me, or why. I am not fighting against the NIH mandate, I am fighting to make it more effective. The distributed solution of IRs remains flaky when it comes to retrieving articles. Let's get the articles deposited in there and we'll see how flaky retrieval proves to be... researchers in a given discipline like to go to a one-stop entry point to find their documentation. Fine, let them shop at PMC. But let direct deposit be in the IR, with PMC harvesting therefrom. Perhaps Google will be that universal entry point some time in the future, but this is not presently the case... Wherever OA content is deposited, that is where harvesters -- such as Google, Oaister, Scirus, Scopus, Web Of Science, Citeseer, Citebase -- or PMC -- can and will get it. Or do you think we should be depositing directly in google too? For biomedical researchers, knowing that PubMed
RE�: Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
I ask for an explanation about what appears like a logical gap to me. All I get in response is a series of references which reiterate the same thesis over and over. This must be Stevan Harnad's notion of what a civil debate must be like... It goes roughly like this: I (SH) am right. If they disagree it is because they have not understood. So I must repeat And repeat And repeat until they either shut up (allusion to wasted bandwidth, for example) or they agree (and hopefully just fade away). Sorry, my dear harnad, but this is not my notion of a civil debate. And I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 19:49 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policyhttp://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04L=AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUMF=lP=92016 (Oct 2004) Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05L=american-scientist-open-access-forumF=lP=2453 (Jan 2005) National Institutes of Health: Report on the NIH Public Access Policy. In: Department of Health and Human Serviceshttp://publicaccess.nih.gov/Final_Report_20060201.pdf (Jan 2006, reporting 3.8% compliance rate after 8 months for its first, non-mandatory deposit policy) Central versus institutional self-archivinghttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/133-guid.htm (Sep 2006) Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html(Sep 2006) THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/Harnad-driverstate2.html(Jan 2008) Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/344-guid.html(Jan 2008) Yet Another Reason for Institutional OA Mandates: To Reinforce and Monitor Compliance With Funder OA Mandates (Feb 2008) How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandateshttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html (Mar 2008) One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/375-guid.html(Mar 2008) NIH Invites Recommendations on How to Implement and Monitor Compliance with Its OA Self-Archiving Mandatehttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/381-guid.html (Apr 2008) Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central Repositorieshttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/414-guid.html (Jun 2008) On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: One more exercise of turning in circles. The main point is that the NIH mandate does not affect at all the way in which institutional repositories develop. If it did, I would like to have very precise and concrete examples... Let's go once more: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. And, as it is repeated twice further on in Harnad's answer, one must assume it is one of his strong but mysterious convictions that we must all follow or be treated as heretics. The NIH mandate is quite effective as is. No need to spend so much time to tweak it further. Saying that we must deposit first and think about retrieval later is really not good planning. In fact it is quite naive. If they shop in PMC, why could they not search through PMC as well? The reference to direct deposit in Google is beside the point, of course. If it is an attempt at humour or irony, it is just that: an attempt. Researchers use PM to find articles, then go to PMC to retrieve those articles that are in OA. Were they in other deposits, the linkage would be more complex and more fragile. Finally, Harnad's conclusion is the one I was hoping to see: either you follow my way very narrowly or you contribute to slowing down the progress of OA. In other times and places, i suspect I would end up on a wood pile for ultimate purification of my soul... Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 13:51 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. (1) because it forces authors whose institutions have an institutional mandate to deposit twice; (2) because it forces institutions that do not have an institutional mandate to propose requiring their (NIH) authors to deposit twice; (3) because, being much-imitated, it encourages other funders to likewise mandate central deposit, which forces more authors to deposit twice, or even more often, in ever more repositories; (4) because it fails to reinforce the adoption of institutional mandates, and hence fails to reinforce the self-archiving of unfunded institutional research output; (5) because it makes institutional self-archiving harder rather than easier, and makes institutional author resistance to institutional self-archiving mandates more probable rather than less probable; (6) because it misses the opportunity for a convergent and coordinated joint transition to universal OA, with the help of research funders and the providers of all research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded: the institutions. And all completely needlessly. For mandating direct central deposit entails no functional gain whatsoever over mandating institutional deposit and central harvesting, only needless loss, both in potential OA and in OA mandate growth, for the 6 reasons stated above (all, and more, stated explicitly in the links cited and in previous postings). And now I shall stop replying to Jean-Claude's postings which, as has happened before, have waxed more and more shrill and ad hominem with each iteration: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4747.html Stevan Harnad On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I ask for an explanation about what appears like a logical gap to me. All I get in response is a series of references which reiterate the same thesis over and over. This must be Stevan Harnad's notion of what a civil debate must be like... It goes roughly like this: I (SH) am right. If they disagree it is because they have not understood. So I must repeat And repeat And repeat until they either shut up (allusion to wasted bandwidth, for example) or they agree (and hopefully just fade away). Sorry, my dear harnad, but this is not my notion of a civil debate. And I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 19:49 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register. A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policyhttp://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04L=AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUMF=lP=92016 (Oct 2004) Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05L=american-scientist-open-access-forumF=lP=2453 (Jan 2005) National Institutes of Health: Report on the NIH Public Access Policy. In: Department of Health and Human Serviceshttp://publicaccess.nih.gov/Final_Report_20060201.pdf (Jan 2006, reporting 3.8% compliance rate after 8 months for its first, non-mandatory deposit policy) Central versus institutional self-archivinghttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/133-guid.htm (Sep 2006) Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html(Sep 2006) THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/Harnad-driverstate2.html(Jan 2008) Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/344-guid.html(Jan 2008) Yet Another Reason for Institutional OA Mandates: To Reinforce and Monitor Compliance With Funder OA Mandates (Feb 2008) How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandateshttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html (Mar 2008) One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/375-guid.html(Mar 2008) NIH Invites Recommendations on How to Implement and Monitor Compliance with Its OA
RE�: Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against institution-external OA repositories and then proceed to state point 4? Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: mar. 22/07/2008 15:44 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote in SOAF: I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. (1) No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive for mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories instead of institution-external ones -- into which the institutional repository contents can then be harvested. (2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of OA's target research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, institutions and countries). (3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and monitor the deposit of all their own research output (funded and unfunded, across all disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories. (4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and reinforce institutional OA mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them, so as to facilitate a coherent transition to universal OA. Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of central services, which are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor diminished in the least by the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris completely overlooks th real problem of OA, which is getting the content provided. Convergent institutional and funder mandates will facilitate and accelerate this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly complicate and retard it. (APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500 surcharge for institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green on immediate deposit in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it has been since 2002.) The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html Stevan Harnad On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only sensible locus for Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He says we must fill the institutional repositories first. He also claims that any kind of service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc, CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC, European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take care of itself. The proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding harvesting from IRs to PMC. Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the policy of the APA (American Psychological Association), which wishes to charges authors USD 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves standing an earlier policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR for free. Given the APA stance, is it conceivable that they would watch as all manuscripts are harvested by PMC (as a 'third-party' provider, like Harnad likes to call them) to provide service? The logical corollary of the APA policy is to slap on conditions that prevent harvesting, for why else would they seek to prevent deposit in PMC in the first place? Now, we may speculate on whether APA will back down or not, but the fundamental point is this one: You cannot applaud efforts to prevent Green OA archiving in large, functional repositories that have a decent service for scholars and then say we must all deposit in the individual IRs, which are little more than a storage facility, and then claim that - as in a miracle - functionality and service will emerge. The point of APA's policy is to try to prevent that Green OA will ever become functional and meaningful. I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. Chris Armbruster http://ssrn.com/author=434782
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against institution-external OA repositories and then proceed to state point 4? To repeat: No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive against MANDATING DIRECT DEPOSIT in institution-external OA repositories. (Deposit mandates should be convergent, on institutional OA repositories, not divergent; then institution-external OA repositories can harvest the deposits from the institutional OA repositories.) Reason: To facilitate instead of retarding the scaling up to universal OA. (It would save readers a lot of time and bandwidth if those rushing to proclaim Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy would first take the trouble to understand what Harnad is saying on OA deposit and APA policy...) Stevan Harnad Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: mar. 22/07/2008 15:44 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote in SOAF: I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. (1) No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive for mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories instead of institution-external ones -- into which the institutional repository contents can then be harvested. (2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of OA's target research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, institutions and countries). (3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and monitor the deposit of all their own research output (funded and unfunded, across all disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories. (4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and reinforce institutional OA mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them, so as to facilitate a coherent transition to universal OA. Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of central services, which are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor diminished in the least by the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris completely overlooks th real problem of OA, which is getting the content provided. Convergent institutional and funder mandates will facilitate and accelerate this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly complicate and retard it. (APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500 surcharge for institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green on immediate deposit in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it has been since 2002.) The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html Stevan Harnad On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only sensible locus for Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He says we must fill the institutional repositories first. He also claims that any kind of service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc, CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC, European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take care of itself. The proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding harvesting from IRs to PMC. Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the policy of the APA (American Psychological Association), which wishes to charges authors USD 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves standing an earlier policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR for free. Given the APA stance, is it conceivable that they would watch as all manuscripts are harvested by PMC (as a 'third-party' provider, like Harnad likes to call them) to provide service? The logical corollary of the APA policy is to slap on conditions that prevent harvesting, for why else would they seek to prevent deposit in PMC in the first place? Now, we may speculate on whether APA will back down or not, but the fundamental point is this one: You cannot applaud efforts to prevent
Re: [SOAF] Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote in SOAF: I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. (1) No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive for mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories instead of institution-external ones -- into which the institutional repository contents can then be harvested. (2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of OA's target research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, institutions and countries). (3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and monitor the deposit of all their own research output (funded and unfunded, across all disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories. (4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and reinforce institutional OA mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them, so as to facilitate a coherent transition to universal OA. Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of central services, which are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor diminished in the least by the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris completely overlooks the real problem of OA, which is getting the content provided. Convergent institutional and funder mandates will facilitate and accelerate this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly complicate and retard it. (APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500 surcharge for institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green on immediate deposit in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it has been since 2002.) The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html Stevan Harnad On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only sensible locus for Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He says we must fill the institutional repositories first. He also claims that any kind of service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc, CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC, European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take care of itself. The proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding harvesting from IRs to PMC. Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the policy of the APA (American Psychological Association), which wishes to charges authors USD 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves standing an earlier policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR for free. Given the APA stance, is it conceivable that they would watch as all manuscripts are harvested by PMC (as a 'third-party' provider, like Harnad likes to call them) to provide service? The logical corollary of the APA policy is to slap on conditions that prevent harvesting, for why else would they seek to prevent deposit in PMC in the first place? Now, we may speculate on whether APA will back down or not, but the fundamental point is this one: You cannot applaud efforts to prevent Green OA archiving in large, functional repositories that have a decent service for scholars and then say we must all deposit in the individual IRs, which are little more than a storage facility, and then claim that - as in a miracle - functionality and service will emerge. The point of APA's policy is to try to prevent that Green OA will ever become functional and meaningful. I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. Chris Armbruster http://ssrn.com/author=434782
Re: [SOAF] Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against institution-external OA repositories and then proceed to state point 4? To repeat: No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive against MANDATING DIRECT DEPOSIT in institution-external OA repositories. (Deposit mandates should be convergent, on institutional OA repositories, not divergent; then institution-external OA repositories can harvest the deposits from the institutional OA repositories.) Reason: To facilitate instead of retarding the scaling up to universal OA. (It would save readers a lot of time and bandwidth if those rushing to proclaim Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy would first take the trouble to understand what Harnad is saying on OA deposit and APA policy...) Stevan Harnad Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad Date: mar. 22/07/2008 15:44 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote in SOAF: I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. (1) No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive for mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories instead of institution-external ones -- into which the institutional repository contents can then be harvested. (2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of OA's target research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, institutions and countries). (3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and monitor the deposit of all their own research output (funded and unfunded, across all disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories. (4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and reinforce institutional OA mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them, so as to facilitate a coherent transition to universal OA. Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of central services, which are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor diminished in the least by the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris completely overlooks th real problem of OA, which is getting the content provided. Convergent institutional and funder mandates will facilitate and accelerate this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly complicate and retard it. (APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500 surcharge for institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green on immediate deposit in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it has been since 2002.) The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html Stevan Harnad On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only sensible locus for Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He says we must fill the institutional repositories first. He also claims that any kind of service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc, CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC, European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take care of itself. The proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding harvesting from IRs to PMC. Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the policy of the APA (American Psychological Association), which wishes to charges authors USD 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves standing an earlier policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR for free. Given the APA stance, is it conceivable that they would watch as all manuscripts are harvested by PMC (as a 'third-party' provider, like Harnad likes to call them) to provide service? The logical corollary of the APA policy is to slap on conditions that prevent harvesting, for why else would they seek to prevent deposit in PMC in the first place? Now, we may speculate on whether APA will back down or not, but the fundamental point is this one: You cannot applaud efforts to prevent
Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote in SOAF: I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. (1) No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive for mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories instead of institution-external ones -- into which the institutional repository contents can then be harvested. (2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of OA's target research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, institutions and countries). (3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and monitor the deposit of all their own research output (funded and unfunded, across all disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories. (4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and reinforce institutional OA mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them, so as to facilitate a coherent transition to universal OA. Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of central services, which are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor diminished in the least by the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris completely overlooks the real problem of OA, which is getting the content provided. Convergent institutional and funder mandates will facilitate and accelerate this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly complicate and retard it. (APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500 surcharge for institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green on immediate deposit in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it has been since 2002.) The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html Stevan Harnad On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only sensible locus for Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He says we must fill the institutional repositories first. He also claims that any kind of service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc, CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC, European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take care of itself. The proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding harvesting from IRs to PMC. Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the policy of the APA (American Psychological Association), which wishes to charges authors USD 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves standing an earlier policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR for free. Given the APA stance, is it conceivable that they would watch as all manuscripts are harvested by PMC (as a 'third-party' provider, like Harnad likes to call them) to provide service? The logical corollary of the APA policy is to slap on conditions that prevent harvesting, for why else would they seek to prevent deposit in PMC in the first place? Now, we may speculate on whether APA will back down or not, but the fundamental point is this one: You cannot applaud efforts to prevent Green OA archiving in large, functional repositories that have a decent service for scholars and then say we must all deposit in the individual IRs, which are little more than a storage facility, and then claim that - as in a miracle - functionality and service will emerge. The point of APA's policy is to try to prevent that Green OA will ever become functional and meaningful. I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that exists: large, functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any service to the OA movement. Chris Armbruster http://ssrn.com/author=434782
