I am afraid both of you see the closeness of repositories and journals from a much to technical perspective.
Being responsible for an institutional repository (epic.awi.de) and chief editor of an open access journal (ESSD) for many years, I recognize vast differences of what is expected in added value from the operators of these "things". From that perspectives, they almost do not have anything in common. I cannot see how forcing them to use the same technical platform will provide a significant benefit. best, Hans Am 21.01.13 19:11, schrieb Heather Morrison: > Jean-Claude raises an important point: from a technical perspective, there is > no necessary difference between journal repositories and other types of > repositories. Ideally, all will be interoperable for searching purposes and > cross-deposit will be routine. The only difference is what is collected in a > given repository. A journal collects the works that belong in the journal, a > disciplinary repository the articles that fit a particular discipline, an > institutional repository the output of the institution. > > Other signs that this is already beginning to happen: > > Library scholarly communication services frequently combine journal hosting > and the institutional repository, sometimes using the same software. > The SWORD protocol facilitates cross-deposit, including journal / repository > cross-deposit. > A growing number of journals, both OA and non-OA, routinely deposit all > articles in repositories as well - e.g. BioMedCentral deposits in both PMC > and institutional repositories (where this is technically feasible); a number > of journals deposit all articles in E-LIS for preservation purposes. > OJS (and likely other open access journal platforms) supports the OAI-PMH > protocol, facilitating cross-searching of journals and repositories. > >From a searching perspective, the tendency to start from databases or > >internet search engines like Google rather than browsing journals has been a > >growing factor for years, predating open access. > > What is surprising is not the convergence per se, but rather how long the > transition is taking considering how much sense this makes. It is good to see > that mathematicians are taking the lead in furthering what to me is an > obvious next stage in publishing, overlay journals building on repositories: > http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243 > > Years ago I would have argued that the question of archiving and preservation > could be left to a later date and should not distract from the task of making > the work open access in the first place. Now that we already have more than > 20% of the world's scholarly literature freely available within a couple of > years of publication, and the emergence of the possibility of publication of > research data becoming routine, I argue that this task needs to be addressed > - not to delay or distract us from making open access happen, but rather at > the same time. On the ground it is generally different people who are > involved in the tasks of preserving information, so moving forward with this > need not take anything away from the primary drive to OA. One of the > arguments for deposit in the institutional repository is that the work will > be preserved - many an IR service now needs to go about the task of > fulfilling this promise. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > > On 2013-01-21, at 8:02 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > >> No quarrel with all this. I just wanted to point out that an OA journal, >> technically, is very close to a repository, at least at its basic level. >> Modular functions can be added, of course, but they can also move across >> platforms without much trouble. As for the vocabulary: repository, archive, >> depository, whatever... We might want to make this terminology a bit more >> rigorous, but it is not a major issue Imho. >> >> Incidentally, from what I have just said, it is not difficult to understand >> why I believe that OA journals and repositories will converge (mixing and >> matching). I see the emergence of mega-journals as a potent sign of this. >> >> Best, >> >> Jean-Claude Guédon >> >> >> >> Le lundi 21 janvier 2013 à 11:42 +1100, Arthur Sale a écrit : >>> I think we are now getting into an off-target area: not open access but >>> archiving. It is really unfortunate that open access repositories were ever >>> called archives. >>> >>> Heather is right. In the past print publishers of books and journals just >>> had to print them onto papyrus, vellum, or paper, using a non-ephemeral ink, >>> and rely on dissemination (and libraries) to do the preservation. >>> Preservation in the digital era is a different matter, having to cope with >>> ephemeral media and error-resistant information (the opposite of the >>> Gutenberg era). But this is not central open access stuff, important though >>> it is. >>> >>> Of course, to forestall comment by someone who wants to carp, the lifetime >>> of research outputs does vary. In some disciplines it is of the order of a >>> year or two on average, in others perhaps of centuries, to use the extremes. >>> >>> Arthur Sale >>> Tasmania, Australia >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: >>> goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org >>> ] On Behalf >>> Of Heather Morrison >>> Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 10:11 AM >>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to >>> mandating Green OA self-archiving >>> >>> On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) >>> >>> Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to >>> maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its >>> own articles. >>> >>> Comment: a gold OA journal serves as a repository, however it is important >>> to understand that any journal, or the open access status of a journal, may >>> be ephemeral in nature. Journals are archived and preserved by libraries, >>> not by journals and publishers. This is important to understand because gold >>> open access without open access archives is highly vulnerable. Journals can >>> simply disappear, or be sold by open access publishers to toll access >>> publishers. For this reason I argue that open access archives are absolutely >>> essential to sustainable open access. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Heather >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> -- >> >> >> Jean-Claude Guédon >> Professeur titulaire >> Littérature comparée >> Université de Montréal >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
