+100 to what Richard said. >> they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. <<
Ah, but what about when the review step is put into place to ensure that copyright is not violated? IR Librarians have, unfortunately, become the enforcers of copyright restrictions at many universities. Somehow, we ended up with the responsibility of ensuring that we're not opening our uni's up to liabilities when paywall publishers come a-threatening with their pack of lawyers because a researcher has made the publisher's version of a paper available on the IR. Contrast that with the Terms of Service of websites like ResearchGate and Academia.edu, who put the onus on the researcher to understand and comply with copyrights for the papers they upload--and *trust* the researchers to do so. No wonder we're getting beat at our own game! But I digress. I agree that library-based IR workflows need a lot of improvement. Librarians need to start pushing back against legal counsels and administrators who make us into the gatekeepers/copyright enforcers. But I take exception to the assertion that we librarians need to step back and let the grownups figure out OA workflows. We often know just as much as researchers at our institutions about copyright, OA, IP, etc. What we need is a partnership to eradicate the barriers to OA that exist at the institutional/library policy and workflow levels. Oftentimes, library administrators take what groups of informed researchers have to say much more seriously than what their rank and file librarians say about things like OA. We could use your support in tearing down these barriers and getting rid of awful legacy workflows that restrict access, rather than this sort of divisive language that suggests we're just dopes who don't get OA and are making things harder for researchers. Respectfully, Stacy Konkiel Stacy Konkiel Director of Marketing & Research at Impactstory <http://impactstory.org/>: share the full story of your research impact. working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA @skonkiel <http://www.twitter.com/skonkiel> and @Impactstory <https://twitter.com/ImpactStory> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, <brent...@ulg.ac.be> wrote: > I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory. > We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out > of the way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process > of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality > or any kind of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the > deposit which should be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if > required. > > > Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, "Richard Poynder" <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> > a écrit : > > I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two > contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near > 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so > that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers > have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in > some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of > UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles > will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not ( > http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done > so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of > the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, > lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex > > > > Andrew is so right. > > > > We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure > reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the > author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the > metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has > "fast lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other > departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. > > > > *Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, > please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this > library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done *after* > the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made > *immediately* OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' > embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own. > > > > Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, > without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet > their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward. > > > > P.S. This is all *old*. We've been through this countless times before. > > > > Dixit > > > > Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, > on all sides... > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams <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 > 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 > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
