See reply: *Repositories vs. Quasitories, or Much Ado About Next To Nothing <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1182-Repositories-vs.-Quasitories,-or-Much-Ado-About-Next-To-Nothing.html>*
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Richard Poynder < richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I thank Kathleen Shearer for her comments. I have responded to them here: > > > > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/institutional- > repositories-response-to.html > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > > > *From:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@ > JISCMAIL.AC.UK <jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk>] *On Behalf Of *Kathleen > Shearer > *Sent:* 28 September 2016 14:59 > *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > *Subject:* Re: Q&A with CNI's Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the > institutional repository? > > > > “The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated” (to paraphrase > Mark Twain) > > > > Although I agree with some of what Richard Poynder writes in the > introduction to his recent interview > <http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Clifford_Lynch.pdf> with Cliff Lynch > published on September 22, 2016, I do take exception to a number of the > assertions he makes about the current state of IRs, especially his comments > that green OA has failed (although this is clearly what the publishers > would have us believe). > > > > It is true that repositories have not yet completely fulfilled their > potential, and there are efforts to shift the transition to open access > through APC-based gold OA. However, this is a critical time for IRs. The > global network is now at a point where we have an international mechanism > to communicate with each other (COAR) and we are consolidating around a > common vision and strategy for repositories. > > > > In the last 3 months I have been traveling extensively in Europe, Latin > America and China. All of these regions are investing in repository > infrastructure to support open access, are working actively to improve > interoperability across regions, and are establishing regional and/or > national networks for repositories. In this respect, the United States is > an outlier, since it has yet to leverage the strategic value of its > institutional repositories through developing a national network. I hope > this will change in the near future. > > > > As Poynder alludes to in his introduction, highly centralized systems are > far easier to launch, nurture and promote, however, there are significant > benefits to a distributed system. It is much less vulnerable to buy-out, > manipulation, or failure. Furthermore, a global network, managed > collectively by the university and research community around the world, can > be more attuned to local values, regional issues and a variety of > perspectives. Repositories *do* have the potential to change scholarly > communication, but there is some urgency that we start to build greater > momentum now. > > > > Recognizing the current challenges and opportunities for repositories, > COAR launched a working group > <https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/working-group-next-generation-repositories/> > in April 2016 to identify priority functionalities for the next generation > of repositories. In this activity, our vision is clearly articulated, > > > > "To position distributed repositories as the foundation of a globally > networked infrastructure for scholarly communication that is collectively > managed by the scholarly community. The resulting global repository network > should have the potential to help transform the scholarly communication > system by emphasizing the benefits of collective, open and distributed > management, open content, uniform behaviors, real-time dissemination, and > collective innovation.” > > > > Ultimately, what we are promoting is a conceptual model, not a technology. > Technologies will and must change over time, including repository > technologies. We are calling for the scholarly community to take back > control of knowledge production process via a distributed network based at > scholarly institutions around the world. > > The aim of our next generation repositories working group is to better > integrate repositories into the research process and make repositories > truly ‘of the web, not just on the web’. Once we do that, we can support > the creation of better, more sophisticated value added services. > > > > In his comments, Poynder also talks about the lack of full text content in > repositories and cites one example, the University of Florida, which is > working with Elsevier to add metadata records. However, one repository does > not make a trend and COAR does not support > <https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-media/publications/coar-guidelines-for-assessing-publisher-repository-services/> > this type of model. The vast majority of repositories focus on collecting > full text content and the primary raison d’etre of repositories has always > been and remains to provide access to full text articles, and other > valuable research outputs, so they can be re-used and maximize the value > and impact of research. > > > > Poynder also mis-characterizes many of the centralized services > aggregating repository content saying they “appear (like SSRN) to be > operated by for-profit concerns”. On the contrary, there are numerous > examples of not-for-profit aggregators including BASE, CORE, > SemanticScholar, CiteSeerX, OpenAIRE, LA Referencia and SHARE (I could go > on). These services index and provide access to a large set of articles, > while also, in some cases, keeping a copy of the content. > > > > And finally, Poynder’s comments about the current protocol used for > interoperability, OAI-PMH, are somewhat misleading. OAI-PMH was a child of > its time (1999) and was pretty good at what it was supposed to do at the > time. However, it is out of date and we need a new approach; the OAI has > proposed ResourceSync <http://www.openarchives.org/rs/toc>, based on > Sitemaps, for discovery and synchronization of repository resources. A > major outcome for the COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group will > be recommendations about new standards for repository interoperability. > > > > And so, there is an African proverb that I often quote in my presentations > about the future of repositories, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone. If you > want to go far, go together’. Indeed, it has taken longer than we had > anticipated to coalesce around a common vision in a distributed, global > environment, but we are now well positioned to offer a viable alternative > for an open and community led scholarly communication system. > > > Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR > > > > > > On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:17 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poynder@btinternet. > com> wrote: > > > > Seventeen years ago 25 people gathered in Santa Fe, New Mexico, to discuss > ways in which the growing number of e-print servers and digital > repositories could be made interoperable. > > > > As scholarly archives and repositories had begun to proliferate a number > of issues had arisen. There was a concern, for instance, that archives > would needlessly replicate each other’s content, and that users would have > to learn multiple interfaces in order to use them. What was therefore > needed was to develop tools and protocols that would allow repositories to > work in concert on a distributed basis. Above all, there was a need to make > distributed archives interoperable so that their content could be > aggregated into a single searchable virtual archive of (eventually) all > published research. > > > > The meeting led to the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata > Harvesting (OAI-PMH), and to the institutional repository movement. Today > there are thousands of institutional repositories around the world. > > > > Yet 17 years later the interoperability promised by OAI-PMH has not really > materialised, few third-party service providers have emerged to leverage > the content in repositories, and duplication has not been avoided. > Moreover, to the exasperation of green OA advocates, authors have proved > reluctant to take on the task of depositing their papers in these > repositories. Some therefore now believe that the institutional repository > faces an existential threat. At the very least, they say, it is time to > re-think the role and purpose of the institutional repository. > > > > These and other matters are discussed in an interview with Clifford Lynch, > director of the Washington-based Coalition for Networked Information and > one of those who attended the Santa Fe meeting. > > > > The Q&A (plus introduction) can be accessed here: http://poynder.blogspot. > co.uk/2016/09/q-with-cnis-clifford-lynch-time-to-re_22.html > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
