The gap here may be the service provided by the repository. How easy or difficult is it to deposit in your institutional subject repository? In my experience this is often much more difficult than it needs to be.
If faculty or students upload their work, make sure this doesn't take any more than a few keystrokes and give them the URL to share right away (that's a service we get from this), not a few days or weeks later after you've checked the metadata and copyright. Make copyright the responsibility of the person doing the deposit, not the library or repository, or offer this service as an option with the delay this entails. >From this service perspective I can see the benefits of initiatives like >PeerLibrary. In the long run we are all better off with professionally run >open access archives to look after preservation and participation in relevant >standards, but when institutional services are too hard to use there is a lot >to be said for DIY. A lot of my own informal scholarly work is posted on my blogs using Google Blogger or my new Wordpress blog. Neither Google nor Wordpress has any obligation to make sure that this work continues to be available, so this makes my work vulnerable, but at least it's a way to get the work out there. My perspective is that libraries need to understand that this is the collection of the future and develop programs and services to support this work rather than trying to fit author self-archiving into traditional publishing. The questions should not be, "are you allowed to deposit this in the IR given publisher copyright?" but rather "are you allowed to transfer all copyright to publishers given your obligation to the public to share your work through the IR"? The strong institutional deposit mandate (as Stevan recommends) is a good way to change this question at every university. Green policies provide the groundwork for open access publishing to happen. Once you have incentive to look for publishers that provide good dissemination practices, you have incentive to choose open access journals (all else being reasonably equal). best, Heather Morrison On 2014-09-03, at 9:40 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of >> Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln >> Date: September 3, 2014 at 9:25:39 PM GMT-4 >> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk >> >> Three questions for Nebraska-Lincoln (N-L) Libraries, in order of importance: >> >> (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal >> articles (only) per year is deposited in the N-L Repository? >> >> (Without that figure, there is no way of knowing how well N-L is doing, >> compared >> to other institutional repositories, mandated or unmandated.) >> >> Simple way to estimate the above (but you have to keep track of both the >> publication date and the deposit date): Sample total annual N-L output from >> WoS or SCOPUS and then test what percentage of it is deposited (and >> when). That can be benchmarked against other university repositories. >> >> (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? >> >> The right mandate — immediate-deposit of all refereed final drafts >> immediately upon acceptance for publication — plus the request-copy >> Button during any allowable publisher embargo interval — works >> (especially if librarians keep mediating during the start-up and if >> deposit is designated as the sole means of submitting articles for >> performance-review). Try it. >> >> (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives? >> >> They’re opposites… Only one of them is objectively describable as >> the "author bearing the brunt” (and that’s having to shell out a lot >> of money — not just do a few extra keystrokes -- or else give up >> journal-choice). >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardn...@unl.edu> wrote: >> >>> As repository managers, many of us are having trouble envisioning getting >>> from where we are currently to what the original OA movement idealistically >>> proposed. This is due to the practical constraints we are faced with (such >>> as restrictive publishers’ policies including not allowing posting of >>> published versions even a decade and more after publication, lack of ready >>> access to authors’ manuscripts, etc.). The solutions being offered to move >>> toward the initial goal include author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of >>> manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE, and others, which are—from my standpoint as a >>> repository manager—one-and-all ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to >>> varying degrees. >>> >>> In populating our repository within the varied constraints, and in offering >>> non-mandated, mediated deposit, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln we >>> are taking a bottom-up approach to access (from the author to the reader) >>> and, as Paul Royster has pointed out, it leaves us in the odd position of >>> actually standing outside the OA movement as it is defined. We have seen >>> forces gather (led by publishers and others) that have further galvanized >>> our peripheral position. From my perspective, these forces intend that the >>> initial vision of OA will be realized on the backs of the authors >>> themselves (with author-pays schemes, mandated self-archiving of >>> manuscripts, etc.). >>> >>> Should authors have to bear the brunt of the OA movement? To some extent, >>> of course, but ultimately that seems counterproductive since they are the >>> ones who generate the content. As librarians and as the in-house publishing >>> unit within the library, we work with, and for, authors daily and we help >>> them get their work out to readers. We assist with interpretation of >>> permissions, upload the work, and so on. They create, we facilitate access >>> to their creations. >>> >>> In summary, in the discussions that have ensued on the various lists this >>> past week, I see a disconnect between what I experience on a daily basis >>> working with the IR and what we say as a community we are trying to achieve. >>> >>> Sue Gardner >>> Scholarly Communications Librarian >>> >>> <image001.jpg> >>> >>> <Sue Ann Gardner.vcf> >> > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
