Klaus Â
1. Almost all research intensive universities in the world now have repositories. I am sorry if yours doesn't. The remaining non-research oriented universities will follow suit if it suits them, and there are at most 10,000 of them. 2. I accept there are a few thousand scholars with no university or research lab institutional affiliation. I myself exist on the fringe of UTas as a retired Emeritus Professor. Consortial arrangements will take care of this when we reach near 100% capture (such as the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery - a primary source of key botanical and zoological data) - well say 80%. Arguing for 10-15% is a defeatist attitude. 3. Your third argument is true but silly. It simply does not make sense. IRs are primary as they link to researcher output, CRs and publishers are secondary.  Arthur Sale University of Tasmania  -----Original Message----- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Graf Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 5:00 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Fwd: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Liège]  ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Klaus Graf <klausg...@googlemail.com> List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: 2009/2/5 Subject: Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Liège] To: fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org   (1) Please consider that most universites worldwide doesn't have IRs.  (2) Please take into account that thousands of scholars have NO university affiliation. (I cannot see that my idea to open IRs for alumni research has get any feedback.)  (3) IR managers can take all eprints from institution-affiliated scholars which are libre OA (under CC-BY or CC-BY-NC/ND) and available on a publisher's website or in a CR/TR. This is one reason why gratis OA isn't enough.  Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net