Andrew Adams raises an important point from my perspective, and this problem is not limited to the UK.
Even though I am a librarian and enthusiastic advocate of self-archiving myself, when my library has policies that don't let me upload my work and get my URL immediately, my inclination is to hop over to google docs. Hopefully I'll continue to remember to cross-deposit in the IR, but in the meantime the IR (and the library and the university) are losing out on the highest likely time of exposure, when things are current. A shift to immediate free access for the self-archiving author (unless checking specifically requested) could do a lot to facilitate self-archiving, and the resulting increase in use of the IR could increase the web metrics and perceived value of library, IR and university. A library service that gave me my URL to freely share my work immediately on deposit, with a thank-you note and update on metadata checking at a later date is a service that I'd really appreciate. Developing services that people really find valuable and enjoy using, in my opinion, would bode well for the future of libraries and IRs [speaking as a prof in an information studies program]. best, Heather Morrison On 2014-09-22, at 7:35 PM, "Andrew A. Adams" <a...@meiji.ac.jp<mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp>> wrote: The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications. (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why, butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so they're unwilling to give it a strong name. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp<mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
