[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
At COAR, we have been doing some work to promote the implementation of OA clauses in publishers' licenses. These types of clauses are starting to be requested by institutions and licensing agencies to secure the rights of authors to deposit into a repository, often in order to comply with OA policies. They also relieve the burden of having to look up the policy for each article before depositing. Some of you may have already seen the draft LIBLICENSE Model License language, which I understand has been successfully included in some licenses: Notwithstanding any terms or conditions to the contrary in any author agreement between authors and Licensor, authors who are Authorized Users of Licensee (“Authors” whose work (“Content”) is accepted for publication by Licensor during the Term shall retain the non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free right to use their Content for scholarly and educational purposes, including self-archiving or depositing the Content in institutional, subject-based, national or other open repositories or archives (including the author’s own web pages or departmental servers), and to comply with all grant or institutional requirements associated with the Content. (pg. 2-3) While this may seem like an imperfect solution, it does help bring us one step closer to our goal of open access. Best, Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director, COAR kathleen.shea...@coar-repositories.org www.coar-repositories.org Skype: kathleen.shearer2 +1 514 847 9068 On 2014-09-27, at 8:04 PM, Danny Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.au wrote: Putting aside the tit for tat nature of some of this discussion, one of the big problems for making available works that have been deposited to repositories is the complexity of the copyright compliance. There are the rules imposed by publishers, and then the possibility that the institution or funder has a special Œarrangement¹ with publishers that then override the standard copyright position obtainable from their websites. And sometimes publishers change their rules - like the length of embargo. To add to this there is the confusion over whether the author is under a mandate - which affects the Elsevier situation. Yes, Stevan - I know you argue that Elsevier¹s position is semantics, but nonetheless it adds to the muddiness of the waters here. I wrote about this on 23 May last year: ³Walking in quicksand, keeping up with copyright agreements http://aoasg.org.au/2013/05/23/walking-in-quicksand-keeping-up-with-copyrig ht-agreements/ My conclusion then was: These changing copyright arrangements mean that the process of making research openly accessible through a repository is becoming less and less able to be undertaken by individuals. By necessity, repository deposit is becoming solely the responsibility of the institution.² Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Executive Officer Australian Open Access Support Group e: e...@aoasg.org.au p: +612 6125 6839 w: www.aoasg.org.au t: @openaccess_oz On 25/09/2014 1:46 am, Joachim SCHOPFEL joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr wrote: Here in France, librarians often are more or less unsatisfied with scientists because of lacking awareness, motivation and enthusiasm for open access. In the UK, some scientists seem unsatisfied with librarians because they do their job too carefully. Why not swap them? (I am joking, yet...why not?) :) Le Mercredi 24 Septembre 2014 16:29 CEST, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca a écrit: Thanks for defending the profession, Jean-Claude and I think you've made some important points. However, there is nothing with service. Providing good service does not make one a servant. 20% of the work of an academic is commonly formally described as service. One could also describe teaching and research as service activities. A good leader of the country serves the country. If librarians are and should not be servants (I agree with this), nevertheless the library itself is a service, and it will be easier for libraries to make the case to sustain and grow their support if the library is perceived as a useful and valued service, IMHO. Many libraries fully understand this, and I am familiar with examples of libraries that excel in both service to their universities or colleges and academic service to their profession. The obligation to consider service true of academic departments and universities, too - if we want to survive and thrive we need to recruit , retain and graduate students and demonstrate the value of their education. My perspective is that it would be helpful to the transition in scholarly communication for librarians and faculty to understand each other better. Following is an overgeneralization that I'd critique in one of my students papers :) Some researchers do not fully appreciate the value of the library profession. Some librarians do not fully appreciate the
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Putting aside the tit for tat nature of some of this discussion, one of the big problems for making available works that have been deposited to repositories is the complexity of the copyright compliance. There are the rules imposed by publishers, and then the possibility that the institution or funder has a special Œarrangement¹ with publishers that then override the standard copyright position obtainable from their websites. And sometimes publishers change their rules - like the length of embargo. To add to this there is the confusion over whether the author is under a mandate - which affects the Elsevier situation. Yes, Stevan - I know you argue that Elsevier¹s position is semantics, but nonetheless it adds to the muddiness of the waters here. I wrote about this on 23 May last year: ³Walking in quicksand, keeping up with copyright agreements http://aoasg.org.au/2013/05/23/walking-in-quicksand-keeping-up-with-copyrig ht-agreements/ My conclusion then was: These changing copyright arrangements mean that the process of making research openly accessible through a repository is becoming less and less able to be undertaken by individuals. By necessity, repository deposit is becoming solely the responsibility of the institution.² Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Executive Officer Australian Open Access Support Group e: e...@aoasg.org.au p: +612 6125 6839 w: www.aoasg.org.au t: @openaccess_oz On 25/09/2014 1:46 am, Joachim SCHOPFEL joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr wrote: Here in France, librarians often are more or less unsatisfied with scientists because of lacking awareness, motivation and enthusiasm for open access. In the UK, some scientists seem unsatisfied with librarians because they do their job too carefully. Why not swap them? (I am joking, yet...why not?) :) Le Mercredi 24 Septembre 2014 16:29 CEST, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca a écrit: Thanks for defending the profession, Jean-Claude and I think you've made some important points. However, there is nothing with service. Providing good service does not make one a servant. 20% of the work of an academic is commonly formally described as service. One could also describe teaching and research as service activities. A good leader of the country serves the country. If librarians are and should not be servants (I agree with this), nevertheless the library itself is a service, and it will be easier for libraries to make the case to sustain and grow their support if the library is perceived as a useful and valued service, IMHO. Many libraries fully understand this, and I am familiar with examples of libraries that excel in both service to their universities or colleges and academic service to their profession. The obligation to consider service true of academic departments and universities, too - if we want to survive and thrive we need to recruit , retain and graduate students and demonstrate the value of their education. My perspective is that it would be helpful to the transition in scholarly communication for librarians and faculty to understand each other better. Following is an overgeneralization that I'd critique in one of my students papers :) Some researchers do not fully appreciate the value of the library profession. Some librarians do not fully appreciate the working conditions of scholars. There are some librarians who assume that the generous funding, tenure and secure salaries enjoyed by some faculty is the norm. The reality in many universities is that many faculty in arts, humanities and social sciences may have no research funding at all and no guarantees of funding for travel to conferences, and that in the US and Canada, the largest group of university professors are very part-time with no job security, benefits, or support for research activities whatsoever. Your point about the Charleston Conference (librarians and publishers together) is well taken. If librarians want to become more actively involved in scholarship (which I advocate), it might be best to spend less time talking with publishers (and even with other librarians) and more time talking with and understanding faculty members. One idea that I know some librarians are already doing is having librarians attend the conferences associated with the discipline(s) that they serve. Other ideas? best, Heather On 2014-09-24, at 9:10 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.camailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Beware of categories such as librarians or publishers or even researchers. Let us remember also that librarians were behind the creation of repositories back around 2003-4. Without them, their work and, often, their money and resources, we simply would not have these repositories. That some librarians should try to enforce very strict rules, etc. is not all that surprising: the profession is built on care, precision and rigorous management of an unwieldy set of objects. However, we should not paint
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Dana Roth wrote: Thanks to Stevan for reminding the list that working with librarians will, in the long run, be much more productive than denigrating their efforts. I am all in favour or working with librarians when those librarians are working to promote Open Access. When librarians work in ways which inhibit my view of the best route to Open Access, I reserve the right to criticise those actions. There are many librarians who do get it and with who I'm happy to share common cause, and to praise their efforts. I have in the past said that the ideal situation for promoting open access at an institution is for a coalition of reseaerchers, manager and librarians to work at explaining the benefits to the institution (in achieving its mission and in gaining early adopter relative benefits) to the rest of the researchers, managers and librarians. Unfortunately, in too many cases, librarians (often those who were not the original OA evangelist librarians) apply a wrong-headed set of roadblocks to institutional repository deposit processes which delays OA, makes deposit more frustrating and more difficult for researchers, and weakens the deposit process. It is these librarians that I wish to get out of the way, not librarians in general. -- 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] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Beware of categories such as librarians or publishers or even researchers. Let us remember also that librarians were behind the creation of repositories back around 2003-4. Without them, their work and, often, their money and resources, we simply would not have these repositories. That some librarians should try to enforce very strict rules, etc. is not all that surprising: the profession is built on care, precision and rigorous management of an unwieldy set of objects. However, we should not paint the profession with too broad a brush. There is more to this: researchers often adopt a dismissive attitude with regard to librarians. They treat them as people delivering a service, i.e. as servants. Nothing could be more wrong. Librarians help us navigate the complex world of information. They are extremely important partners in the process of doing research. In some universities - and I believe this is the right attitude - some librarians acquire academic status and do research themselves. One thing that always surprises me is that, sometimes, it feels as if librarians were viewed as culprits and publishers as angels - the very term has been used. The use of global categories in either case is wrong, but the most exacting librarian that is vetting very precisely every item going into his/her repository will never skew and warp the fabric of scientific communication as some large publishers do. Let us keep things in perspective, please. This said, it is true that some librarians see their task as a procurement exercise, and they work with one strange guiding principle: keep good relationships with the vendors, to use the dominant vocabulary. The Charleston conference that takes place every year is a perfect example of this trend: publishers and librarians meet with almost no researchers present. This amounts to a situation that is symmetrical to that of arrogant researchers. Researchers become customers of libraries, etc. And, of course, big publishers are only too happy to support such events. Librarians and researchers are natural allies. Elitist attitudes among researchers are anything but pleasant. Procurement objectives among librarians are obviously of the essence, but they should not become the sole guiding principle of librarians, and, IMHO, a great many librarians know this perfectly well. As for me, I love librarians. (disclosure: I married one... :-) ). -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le mercredi 24 septembre 2014 à 09:35 +0900, Andrew A. Adams a écrit : Dana Roth wrote: Thanks to Stevan for reminding the list that working with librarians will, in the long run, be much more productive than denigrating their efforts. I am all in favour or working with librarians when those librarians are working to promote Open Access. When librarians work in ways which inhibit my view of the best route to Open Access, I reserve the right to criticise those actions. There are many librarians who do get it and with who I'm happy to share common cause, and to praise their efforts. I have in the past said that the ideal situation for promoting open access at an institution is for a coalition of reseaerchers, manager and librarians to work at explaining the benefits to the institution (in achieving its mission and in gaining early adopter relative benefits) to the rest of the researchers, managers and librarians. Unfortunately, in too many cases, librarians (often those who were not the original OA evangelist librarians) apply a wrong-headed set of roadblocks to institutional repository deposit processes which delays OA, makes deposit more frustrating and more difficult for researchers, and weakens the deposit process. It is these librarians that I wish to get out of the way, not librarians in general. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Thanks for defending the profession, Jean-Claude and I think you've made some important points. However, there is nothing with service. Providing good service does not make one a servant. 20% of the work of an academic is commonly formally described as service. One could also describe teaching and research as service activities. A good leader of the country serves the country. If librarians are and should not be servants (I agree with this), nevertheless the library itself is a service, and it will be easier for libraries to make the case to sustain and grow their support if the library is perceived as a useful and valued service, IMHO. Many libraries fully understand this, and I am familiar with examples of libraries that excel in both service to their universities or colleges and academic service to their profession. The obligation to consider service true of academic departments and universities, too - if we want to survive and thrive we need to recruit , retain and graduate students and demonstrate the value of their education. My perspective is that it would be helpful to the transition in scholarly communication for librarians and faculty to understand each other better. Following is an overgeneralization that I'd critique in one of my students papers :) Some researchers do not fully appreciate the value of the library profession. Some librarians do not fully appreciate the working conditions of scholars. There are some librarians who assume that the generous funding, tenure and secure salaries enjoyed by some faculty is the norm. The reality in many universities is that many faculty in arts, humanities and social sciences may have no research funding at all and no guarantees of funding for travel to conferences, and that in the US and Canada, the largest group of university professors are very part-time with no job security, benefits, or support for research activities whatsoever. Your point about the Charleston Conference (librarians and publishers together) is well taken. If librarians want to become more actively involved in scholarship (which I advocate), it might be best to spend less time talking with publishers (and even with other librarians) and more time talking with and understanding faculty members. One idea that I know some librarians are already doing is having librarians attend the conferences associated with the discipline(s) that they serve. Other ideas? best, Heather On 2014-09-24, at 9:10 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.camailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Beware of categories such as librarians or publishers or even researchers. Let us remember also that librarians were behind the creation of repositories back around 2003-4. Without them, their work and, often, their money and resources, we simply would not have these repositories. That some librarians should try to enforce very strict rules, etc. is not all that surprising: the profession is built on care, precision and rigorous management of an unwieldy set of objects. However, we should not paint the profession with too broad a brush. There is more to this: researchers often adopt a dismissive attitude with regard to librarians. They treat them as people delivering a service, i.e. as servants. Nothing could be more wrong. Librarians help us navigate the complex world of information. They are extremely important partners in the process of doing research. In some universities - and I believe this is the right attitude - some librarians acquire academic status and do research themselves. One thing that always surprises me is that, sometimes, it feels as if librarians were viewed as culprits and publishers as angels - the very term has been used. The use of global categories in either case is wrong, but the most exacting librarian that is vetting very precisely every item going into his/her repository will never skew and warp the fabric of scientific communication as some large publishers do. Let us keep things in perspective, please. This said, it is true that some librarians see their task as a procurement exercise, and they work with one strange guiding principle: keep good relationships with the vendors, to use the dominant vocabulary. The Charleston conference that takes place every year is a perfect example of this trend: publishers and librarians meet with almost no researchers present. This amounts to a situation that is symmetrical to that of arrogant researchers. Researchers become customers of libraries, etc. And, of course, big publishers are only too happy to support such events. Librarians and researchers are natural allies. Elitist attitudes among researchers are anything but pleasant. Procurement objectives among librarians are obviously of the essence, but they should not become the sole guiding principle of librarians, and, IMHO, a great many librarians know this perfectly well. As for me, I love librarians.
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Here in France, librarians often are more or less unsatisfied with scientists because of lacking awareness, motivation and enthusiasm for open access. In the UK, some scientists seem unsatisfied with librarians because they do their job too carefully. Why not swap them? (I am joking, yet...why not?) :) Le Mercredi 24 Septembre 2014 16:29 CEST, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca a écrit: Thanks for defending the profession, Jean-Claude and I think you've made some important points. However, there is nothing with service. Providing good service does not make one a servant. 20% of the work of an academic is commonly formally described as service. One could also describe teaching and research as service activities. A good leader of the country serves the country. If librarians are and should not be servants (I agree with this), nevertheless the library itself is a service, and it will be easier for libraries to make the case to sustain and grow their support if the library is perceived as a useful and valued service, IMHO. Many libraries fully understand this, and I am familiar with examples of libraries that excel in both service to their universities or colleges and academic service to their profession. The obligation to consider service true of academic departments and universities, too - if we want to survive and thrive we need to recruit , retain and graduate students and demonstrate the value of their education. My perspective is that it would be helpful to the transition in scholarly communication for librarians and faculty to understand each other better. Following is an overgeneralization that I'd critique in one of my students papers :) Some researchers do not fully appreciate the value of the library profession. Some librarians do not fully appreciate the working conditions of scholars. There are some librarians who assume that the generous funding, tenure and secure salaries enjoyed by some faculty is the norm. The reality in many universities is that many faculty in arts, humanities and social sciences may have no research funding at all and no guarantees of funding for travel to conferences, and that in the US and Canada, the largest group of university professors are very part-time with no job security, benefits, or support for research activities whatsoever. Your point about the Charleston Conference (librarians and publishers together) is well taken. If librarians want to become more actively involved in scholarship (which I advocate), it might be best to spend less time talking with publishers (and even with other librarians) and more time talking with and understanding faculty members. One idea that I know some librarians are already doing is having librarians attend the conferences associated with the discipline(s) that they serve. Other ideas? best, Heather On 2014-09-24, at 9:10 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.camailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Beware of categories such as librarians or publishers or even researchers. Let us remember also that librarians were behind the creation of repositories back around 2003-4. Without them, their work and, often, their money and resources, we simply would not have these repositories. That some librarians should try to enforce very strict rules, etc. is not all that surprising: the profession is built on care, precision and rigorous management of an unwieldy set of objects. However, we should not paint the profession with too broad a brush. There is more to this: researchers often adopt a dismissive attitude with regard to librarians. They treat them as people delivering a service, i.e. as servants. Nothing could be more wrong. Librarians help us navigate the complex world of information. They are extremely important partners in the process of doing research. In some universities - and I believe this is the right attitude - some librarians acquire academic status and do research themselves. One thing that always surprises me is that, sometimes, it feels as if librarians were viewed as culprits and publishers as angels - the very term has been used. The use of global categories in either case is wrong, but the most exacting librarian that is vetting very precisely every item going into his/her repository will never skew and warp the fabric of scientific communication as some large publishers do. Let us keep things in perspective, please. This said, it is true that some librarians see their task as a procurement exercise, and they work with one strange guiding principle: keep good relationships with the vendors, to use the dominant vocabulary. The Charleston conference that takes place every year is a perfect example of this trend: publishers and librarians meet with almost no researchers present. This amounts to a situation that is symmetrical to that
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those deposits priority treatment. Best, Jeroen Bosman Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: 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. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid! (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto: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.jpmailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: The challenge
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Thanks for clarifying this Stevan. I am thinking that OA advocates really don’t want to alienate their main allies. From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 15:44 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Library Vetting of Repository Deposits On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk mailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: 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. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid! (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad From: goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto: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 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
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. Dear Jeroen, Many thanks for the support. But if what were mandated for deposit were the unrefereed draft rather than the refereed, accepted draft, the effect would be just dreadful! (1) OA's target is the refereed draft (2) Many (perhaps most) authors do not want to make their unrefereed drafts public (3) Peer-review reform is a completely independent issue that has nothing (nothing whatsoever) to do with OA (despite rampant intuitions and speculations) and requires objective, empirical testing, not pre-emptive conflation with OA! Grateful that you added that's not the point here! I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those deposits priority treatment. I agree that that would be better. I just meant that immediate default RA (with the option to make it immediately OA) was already far, far better than authors depositing and then having to wait for the library to decide whether or not to accept, and whether to make access RA or OA. Best, Stevan Harnad Best, Jeroen Bosman Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: 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. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, * but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. * This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be *absolutely splendid!* (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Thanks to Stevan for reminding the list that working with librarians will, in the long run, be much more productive than denigrating their efforts. Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:44 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those deposits priority treatment. Best, Jeroen Bosman Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: 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. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid! (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto: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
