Begin forwarded message: > From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster > Date: September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4 > To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <proyst...@unl.edu> wrote: > >> At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the waters of >> scholarly communications, >> but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier this month, >> I shall venture the following … >> >> Answers for Dr. Harnad >> >> (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal >> articles (only) per year is >> deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished your >> graduate student (at least he >> said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could compare >> it to Web of Science >> publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I cautioned >> him that I felt Web of >> Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample, but I sent >> the data anyway. >> So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If the news >> is good, I hope you will >> share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your guide. As >> for benchmarking, I don’t believe >> it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free scholarship is >> a positive one. I hope when >> they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for participation. > > Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I just > called him to ask about > the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the results of the > analysis in 2-3 weeks! > > So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data. Apparently > Sue was not aware that UNL > had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!). > >> (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? >> I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that is my >> university’s administration; >> so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I have not >> campaigned for adoption of >> such a mandate. My reasons have been purely personal and idiosyncratic, and >> I do not hold them >> up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or attitude of >> this university. Bluntly, >> I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are enough >> regulations and requirements >> in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further problems of >> enforcement or compliance, >> and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too many rules: >> we have to park in >> designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke products; we have >> to wear red on game >> days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc. etc. etc. I >> simply do not believe in >> creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own good. The >> Faculty Senate >> voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not desired more >> than that. But I am >> concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one medium-sized >> university town—not >> with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly communications crisis. >> I see discussions lately >> about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—who is >> intended to be bitten? >> Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty. > > I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few extra > keystrokes when a refereed > final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and the > potential benefits are huge. Also, > there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a self-archiving mandate > — if it’s the right > self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that henceforth > the way to submit refereed > journal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit them > in UNL’s IR (rather than > however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will comply as > naturally as they did > when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in hard > copy. It’s just a technological upgrade. > >> (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives? >> I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to Sue’s >> catalog of various proposed >> solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, >> SHARE, and others”—as >> all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.” I >> feel we are strong believers and >> even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and disdainful >> non-advocates for author-pays models. >> But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests between the >> global theoretics of the >> open access “movements” on the one hand and the “boots-on-the-ground” >> practicalities of managing >> a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other. Crusades for >> and controversies about >> “open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually do, and >> now seem more of a >> distraction than a help or guide. > > I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library can’t > mandate self-archiving, can’t fund > author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe, if you > look at the evidence that > mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could encourage the > administration… And > of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can help > with mediated self-archiving, > at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly necessary, > for a few keystrokes — certainly > a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking down the > PDF. checking the rights. etc.). > >> We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green” open >> access; and we have appreciated >> Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against >> innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and >> “holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I sympathize with >> his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness, >> and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of this >> response will be interpreted as attempting >> to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if these >> answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete, >> but that is all I can manage at this time. > > Much appreciated, Paul! > > Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other IRs, > mandated and unmandated. > > Best wishes, > > Stevan > >> >> Paul Royster >> Coordinator of Scholarly Communications >> University of Nebraska–Lincoln >> proys...@unl.edu >> http://digitalcommons.unl.edu >>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
