First, our goal was to get all peer-reviewed research journal articles (2.5M
annually, published in 25K journals) deposited in an OA IR,
so all potential users could access them.
Now we are talking about instead reforming the entire research publication
and communication system.
Could we complete
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Stephen Downes wrote:
> My own preference has always leaned toward personal repositories.
So did mine -- way back in 1994:
http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/i-overture-the-subversive-proposal.shtml
The ensuing years -- and mutating strategies -- came and went, however,
withou
st for fun!
>
> Regards,
> Antony
> --
> Antony Corfield
> ROAD Project
> http://road.aber.ac.uk
> tel. 01970 628724
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> > repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> &g
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Tom Franklin wrote:
> [Harnad suggests] that "The interests and incentives are all there --
> research usage and impact -- and they are all local (and competitive).
> Those interests and incentives simply need to be mobilized".
>
> If those interests were real then people wou
Tom Franklin wrote:
> If those interests were real then people would be doing it already. If it
> would help with RAE or REF then a very large number (those who are, or
> would
> like to be, research active) would get involved and do it.
Southampton did that, and it was very successful... but it t
/
> -Original Message-
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 10 March 2008 09:56
> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
>
On 10 Mar 2008, at 09:55, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Brewster Kahle may have the disk space, but if his is to become the global
> database, then why should individuals have local websites at all? They
> could all set up shop in the Global Wayback Machine -- or, for that
> matter, store directly in Go
> I too have a hypothesis: I think Andy is basically still
> thinking of IRs and CRs as being basically for the sake of
> archiving and preservation.
Again, just for the record...
No, I absolutely do not think in that way. Indeed, I suspect it is
*because* of our continued confusion between th
On 10 Mar 2008, at 09:11, Andy Powell wrote:
> Well, I hope that you are right... I certainly don't have the will or
> ability to fight a political and technical agenda that has become so
> entrenched worldwide and that says there is only one 'right' way of
> achieving OA.
Those who are involved
.@eduserv.org.uk
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -Original Message-
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 09 March 2008 13:09
> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-arch
dy.pow...@eduserv.org.uk
> +44 (0)1225 474319
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Repositories discussion list
> > [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: 09 March 2008 13:09
> > To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Ian Stuart wrote:
> The cost to install a bog-standard EPrints or DSpace application, and pass
> a
> bylaw that says "thou shalt deposit" is dead easy.
> There is a minimal cost (say 5% of a sysadmin's time)
Add to the bylaw: And the IR will henceforth be the sole source of al
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, R. Stephen Berry wrote:
> Just a suggestion: have a look at the website of Songza. It's a web
> searcher that plays (I think) anything that is available on the web,
> free, but not downloadable. It's an interesting form of open access
> to which nobody could possibly object.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Andy Powell wrote:
> You can repeat the IR mantra as many times as you like... it doesn't
> make it true.
I'd settle for a substantive reply to the substantive points, empirical
and logical (however repetitive they may be)...
> Despite who knows how much funding being pumped
: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Central versus
institutional self-archiving
Thanks Stevan. These are key points that are coming to my mind.
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Atanu Garai/Lists wrote:
v.org.uk/foundation/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
andy.pow...@eduserv.org.uk
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -Original Message-
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 08 March 2008 21:15
> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
>
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Atanu Garai/Lists wrote:
> with the emergence of
> large digitisation projects, notably Google Books, the advantages of
> having a centralised global databases are becoming obvious.
Google books is actively scanning books and paying for it. No OA CR is
doing that for OA conten
Just a suggestion: have a look at the website of Songza. It's a web
searcher that plays (I think) anything that is available on the web,
free, but not downloadable. It's an interesting form of open access
to which nobody could possibly object.
Thanks Stevan. These are key points that are coming to my mind.
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Atanu Garai/Lists wrote:
Dear Colleagues
This question is very basic. Institutions all
over the world are
developing their own repositorie
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Andy Powell wrote:
> This topic may well have been discussed since 1999 - unfortunately much
> of that discussion (at least at a technical level) has not acknowledged
> that the Web has changed almost immeasurably between then and now.
> Web 2.0, social networks, Amazon S3, the
hussein suleman writes
> this is a good question that i will try to answer, based on a fading memory
> ...
>
>
> in the 90s we had a few large subject repositories around the world (like
> arXiv) but they were mostly not (financially) sustainable as they were run by
> poor scholarly societies,
h 2008 12:07
> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
>
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Atanu Garai/Lists wrote:
>
> > Dear Colleagues
> > This question is very basic. Institutions all over the world are
> > develo
-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:46:26 +0200
From: Hussein Suleman
To: Atanu Garai/Lists ,
oai-implementers -- openarchives.org
Subject: Re: [OAI-implementers] local/distributed vs global/unified archives
p/
This topic has been much discussed since in the American Scientist
Open Access Forum. See the topic threads "Central vs. Distributed
Archives" (since 1999) and "Central versus institutional self-archiving".
See also:
Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim
pecified that the deposit should be in
a central archive (PubMed Central or a European counterpart).
In contrast, the respondents' very high levels of willing compliance in
that (JISC) commissioned study (conducted and written by the very same
primary authors as the other JISC study on centr
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:
> Friends, especially friends in India:
>
> Here is a very useful exchange. Can we in India think of a centralised
> archive similar to the one run by CCSD in France for all research councils
> and departments of the Central Government (CSIR, ICAR,
Lee Miller wrote:
> I strongly disagree. Disciplines do share with their own
> researchers a common interest in maximising the visibility,
> usage and impact of their research output. Progress in any
> discipline stands to gain when research results are quickly
> shared with other researchers in t
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 Lee Miller wrote:
> >sh> (b) It is institutions (not disciplines) that share with their own
> >sh> researchers a common interest in maximising the visibility, usage
> >sh> and impact of their own joint research output.
>
> I strongly disagree. Disciplines do share with their
At 14:03 Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Stevan wrote:
In a comment added to Richard Poynder's new online column on OA
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2005/03/time-to-walk-talk.html
Bill Hubbard of SHERPA
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/
has corrected an important (though intentional!) omission from my
own
t;Central vs. Distributed Archives" (1999)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html
"PubMed and self-archiving" (2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2973.html
"Central versus institutional self-archiving" (2003)
http:
Topic Threads:
"Central vs. Distributed Archives" (1999)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html
"PubMed and self-archiving" (2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2973.html
"Central versus institutional s
[Moderator's Note: This welcome initiative from Medlars-India
provides a back-up central OAI-compliant archive for any biomedical
researchers worldwide who do not yet have local OAI archives to
self-archive in at their own institution. Such central back-ups
mirrors and harvesters wi
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> Stevan Harnad writes:
> > citeseer is not OAI-compliant.
>
> Wrong. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/oai.html
That's good news. I knew it was coming but not that it had already come.
And citeseer's new face-lift in its presentation format is very becomin
Not to oversimplify, and recognizing the differences in academic and research
organization between countries, if the UK does own way and the USanother, we
will have what is usually called a natural experiment. I too would have
prefered they had left it to individual choice, but if they don't, le
Joe Halpern, and I have no serious disagreement at all. These points are
really just about the fine-tuning:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Joseph Halpern wrote:
> For what it's worth, in CS, my anecdotal impression is that almost
> all papers that I want to get are freely available on the web
> (typ
Just a very brief response to Stevan's note:
- Stevan says:
> Fewer keystrokes, more self-archiving. Accepted. But now can we talk
> about the vast, sluggish majority that does *no* self-archiving at all?
> That's why the self-archiving mandate is needed.
For what it's worth, in CS, my
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Prof. Tom Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Joseph Halpern :
>
>jh> My guess is that CS researchers will typically not put their
>jh> papers on university servers unless required to do so, simply because of
>jh> laziness.
It is true of just about *all* researchers that they will typ
s each week), institutions (we call them all
on the phone), and funders. I'm afraid it's hard work without quick fixes.
Jan Velterop
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean-Claude Guédon
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> Sent: 04 October 20
greetings -
Stevan Harnad wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea if OSI subsidized authors from
disadvantaged countries and institutions to provide OA to their
articles by
self-archiving them in their institutional archives: Then the subsidy
might
generate more OA articles from the same author
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote:
> While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of
> inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of
> retrieval that other forms of archiving can provide, including some
> form of central archiving.
Ease-of-retriev
Here we go...
On Sat October 2 2004 08:16 am, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote:
> > While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of
> > inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of
> > retrieval that other forms of archivin
How does this follow?
"...the very presence of all that OA content will be the single strongest driver
for preservation."
Brian Simboli
[MODERATOR'S NOTE: In the interest of speed and traffic control,
here is my reply: Because the incentive to preserve contents that
exist is far grea
om: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Sun 10/3/2004 1:03 PM
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
>
> ON THE PRESERVATION NON-PROBLEM
>
igmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
ON THE PRESERVATION NON-PROBLEM
FOR SELF-ARCHIVED OA SUPPLEMENTS
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, David Goodman wrote:
> Doesn't it depend on the institution: in particular upon the
> institution's reli
ON THE PRESERVATION NON-PROBLEM
FOR SELF-ARCHIVED OA SUPPLEMENTS
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, David Goodman wrote:
> Doesn't it depend on the institution: in particular upon the
> institution's reliability, its commitment to self-archiving and OA in
> general, and its general orientatio
ent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:17 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote:
> While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of
> inter-operabi
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote:
> While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of
> inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of retrieval
> that other forms of archiving can provide, including some form of central
> archiving.
This is incorre
ientist Open Access Forum
Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
...
> David, it was you who wrote, about the US House/NIH recommended mandate:
>
>"Unlike Peter, I regard this as a typical example of what one does
> _not_ want from a government mandate
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Heather Morrison wrote:
> hi Stevan,
>
> Is there any chance you might consider sending a strong, clear signal
> to the effect that you support the NIH proposal, just as it is?
Sure, here's a strong, clear signal:
I strongly support the House/NIH proposal to mandate the self
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, David Goodman wrote:
> You say, "it does not matter which archive has the article." surely the
> the logical consequence is that it does not matter if it is the NIH/BMC
> archive that has the article.
I said exactly why it does not matter at all for full OA *functionality* wh
Stevan,
You say, "it does not matter which archive has the article." surely the
the logical consequence is that it does not matter if it is the NIH/BMC
archive that has the article.
Why should we concern ourselves with previous publishers contracts:
the point of regulatory action is that they wil
e (including all of the core journals) have given their green light
to author self-archiving, but a number of publishers specify institutional
rather than central self-archiving.
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
Stevan Harnad
See:
"Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)"
condition on the receipt
of the tax-payer funding in the first place -- an obvious online-age
update of the basic and longstanding mandate to publish the findings
resulting from funded research at all!
Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hyperm
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Heather Morrison wrote:
> as we move towards global sharing of information, there probably is no
> one model that will fit either all disciplines, or all countries. Within
> the next few years, I fully expect that universities around the world
> will have created their institu
On 10-Aug-04, at 1:23 AM, hb...@tours.inra.fr wrote:
A 14:28 08/08/04 +0100, Richard Durbin wrote:
The biological community is well on the way towards central archiving.
The NIH is a very large, important organisation, but it is not "the biological
community"! It is only a part of the biolog
A 14:28 08/08/04 +0100, Richard Durbin wrote:
The biological community is well on the way towards central archiving.
The NIH is a very large, important organisation, but it is not "the biological
community"! It is only a part of the biological community.
One must also keep in mind, for exampl
se see the recent threads starting:
"Central versus institutional self-archiving" (Aug 8)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3905.html
"AAU misinterprets House Appropriations
Committee Recommendation" (Aug 3)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harn
In a study in the UK which we have just completed for the Joint Information
Systems Committee, JISC (a brief account of which will, referees permitting,
be published in a forthcoming special issue of Serials Review), after quite
exhaustive review of all aspects of e-prints archiving, we recommended
Prefatory note: I strongly support the House/NIH proposal to mandate
self-archiving of NIH-funded research, but I think it is important to
get it amended so it gets it right. It now has to go to the Senate,
and it needs more thought to make it viable and optimal.
"Re: Mandating OA around the c
One of Richard Durbin's points which I think is particularly important
and bears repeating, is that Pubmed (Medline) is a superior search
tool. Although, in my opinion, OAIster is an excellent search tool,
and distributed archiving a needed approach, when it comes to searching,
no general tool can
estimates
the potential power of OAI interoperability, focussing instead only on
its current implementation -- when the real problem today is the missing
80-90% of the OA content, not the missing but easily provided
functionality!
The reason distributed institution-based self-archiving is more like
Stevan Harnad wrote:
I think the House Appropriations Committee was less wise in going on
to specify *where* grantees should self-archive their articles to make
them OA (in PubMed). Surely it is enough to mandate that they should
be made OA! For reasons discussed in an early posting in the Ameri
David Goodman writes
> 1. The growth of archiving will be greatly facilitated by the growth
> of the disciplinary archives, such as Cogprints
> http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/.
Hmm. If the figures at http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/view/year/
are to be believed, there are now less then 3000
preservation
problem (and that has nothing to do with OA). Nor has this anything to
do with central vs. institutional archiving.
Now replies to David's posting:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, David Goodman wrote:
> Prior Threads:
> "Central versus institutional self-archiving"
Prior Threads:
"Central versus institutional self-archiving"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3787.html
"Open Access Journal Start-Ups: A Cost-Cutting Proposal"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3783.html
"Els
ibuted Archives"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html
"Central versus institutional self-archiving"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3206.html
"Association for Computer Machinery Copyright/Self-Archiving Policy"
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Leslie Chan wrote:
> most archives are non-existent or near-empty. So filling the existing
> archives, whether central or not, should be the priority...
> where the articles sit really doesn't matter.
Agreed!
> Institutions will or will not set up archives based on their own
on 3/7/04 4:52 AM, Stevan Harnad at har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
> "Central versus institutional self-archiving"
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3208.html
>
> Depositing articles -- by authors who are immediately ready to deposit
> them today
"Central versus institutional self-archiving"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3208.html
Depositing articles -- by authors who are immediately ready to deposit
them today -- into existing Central Archives such as Arxiv, Cogprints
or Bioline is a good idea,
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:
> I am sure you would have seen the articles published in Nature Vol 426, Nov
> 2003
> (pages 7 and 15) regarding Preprint Server and problems likely to be faced by
> the
> servers which host articles routinely (without editing). I am writing to yo
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, herbert van de sompel wrote:
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html
> >
> > REASON 1: Researchers and their own institutions share a common
> > interest -- because they are co-beneficiaries -- in maximizing the
> > access to, and thereby the im
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> This is *precisely* one of the two fundamental reasons why I have
> redirected my efforts and support from central archiving (such as
> the Physics ArXiv, and CogPrints, which I founded in 1997) to
> institutional self-archiving:
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/arc
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Dan Hunter
(Robert F. Irwin IV Term Assistant Professor of Legal Studies,
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) wrote:
> Thanks for the details. All good strategies, with which I'm reasonably
> familiar given that one of my areas of professional interest is in the
>
Stevan:
Thanks for the details [below]. All good strategies, with which I'm
reasonably familiar, given that one of my areas of professional interest
is in the propagation of p2p networks and the copyright effects on same.
However, the specific issue in this case is with SSRN
http://www.ssrn.com
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Bernie Black wrote:
> I think it is an open question whether centralized or distributed archiving
> will dominate. Maybe both can coexist.
They can and will co-exist, because OAI-interoperability has made them
completely equivalent.
The important question is not which form
I think it is an open question whether centralized or distributed archiving
will dominate. Maybe both can coexist. A good copyright agreement ought
to allow both. Then SSRN can pursue its centralized strategy, and
individual authors/schools can pursue distributed strategies. The bet of
the law
76 matches
Mail list logo
