On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew A. Adams <a...@meiji.ac.jp> wrote:
> > Peter, > > Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I > think a bit confusingly named) systems. It's even more confusing with Medline, PubMed and PubMedCentral all from NIH. > > On your point on central deposit, I beg to differ, as you know. Deposit > locally then harvest centrally is far more sensible than trying to mandate > different deposit loci for the various authors in an institution. This is not axiomatic. The protein community requires authors to deposit sequences communally - and they do. The genome community requires genes deposisted and they do. The crystallographers require crsytal structures and it's 100% compliance. The astronomers... Scientists do not see their institutions as a natural place to deposit their output. It's easy > enough to automatically harvest/cross-deposit, and then one gets the best > of > all worlds. If it's easy enough, why has it still not happened. We've been told for 10 years that if we deposit in IRs then we'll be able to discover all our deposited scholarship. I've been faithful to this vision and deposited 200,000 items in DSpace@cam. There is no algorithm to get them out except manually or writing my own programs. A simple question I've been asking for at least 5 years: "Find me all chemistry theses in UK repos". It's impossible and I suspect will not happen in the next five years. "Find me all chemistry papers in UK repos" is even worse (mainly because there aren't any). > Central deposit and then local harvest Why do we need local harvest? bioscientists search EuroPMC or ArXiV directly. They don't harvest into local repos - there is no point. > is the wrong workflow. > It's trying to make a river flow upstream. Sure, you can do it, but why > bother if all you need is a connection one way or the other. ALl the > benefits > you claim simply come from deposit, not direct deposit, in central > repositories. Deposit + indexing + search. At present we only have the first. And most green cannot be indexed because (a) some is only metadata (b) some is embargoed (c) we will be sued by the publishers. > Which would you recommend for medical physics, by the way? > ArXiv or PMC? Both surely, but that's much more easily achieved if the > workflow is to deposit locally then automatically upload/harvest to both, > than two central deposits or trying to set up cross-harvesting from ArXiv > to > PMC. > Quite the reverse. There's good dialogue between the bio-repositories and arXiV. There's no problem if there is duplication. At least it will be easily discoverable. > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
