Only Andrew Adams has shown a full and realistic grasp of the contingencies. He is spot-on in every respect (except mixing up BMC withPMC!).
1. The only substantive issue is *how to get peer-reviewed journal articles to be made Open Access (OA), today.* 2. Twenty years of evidence shows that -- except in the very few subfields that self-archive spontaneously, unmandated -- *the only way to get those articles to be made OA is to mandate (require) that they be made OA.* 3. Institutions are the source of all peer-reviewed journal articles, in all fields, funded and unfunded. 4. Authors who do not self-archive spontaneously, unmandated, can only be mandated to do it *once*. 5. The only ones that can systematically monitor and ensure that *all* of their research output, in all fields, funded and unfunded, is self-archived, in compliance with self-archiving mandates are *authors' own institutions*. 6. The only way institutions can systematically monitor and ensure that *all * of their research output is self-archived is if it is *deposited, convergently, in their own institutional repository --* not if it is deposited, divergently, here and there, institution-externally. (Institutional back-harvesting of its own institution-external content is so unrealistic as to be hardly worthy of discussion.) 7. The metadata of institutionally deposited articles can be -- and are being -- harvested institution-externally by many harvesters (foremost among them being google and google scholar). 8. The full-texts of institutional deposits are being harvested too (by google and google scholar for sure) -- although for most purposes users only need a link to the full-text in the institutional repository. 9. The power and functionality of OA harvesters can and will be enhanced dramatically -- but *not until much, much more of their target content is OA than is OA today.* 10. Till then it's simply not worth most people's time to enhance functionality over such sparse content. 11. Which brings us straight back to *the need for effective OA self-archiving mandates, systematically (hence institutionally) monitored to ensure compliance*. 12. Arxiv's functionality does not come from the fact that its authors deposit directly in Arxiv: *it comes from the fact that they deposit, and deposit reliably (near 100%), unmandated.* * * 13. Ditto for those who share protein or crystallographic data centrally, * unmandated*. 14. The real problem is all of that vast majority of OA's target *content that is not being deposited* -- either institutionally or institution-externally -- *because deposit has not yet been mandated*. 15. Immediate deposit of all peer-reviewed research output can be mandated by both institutions and funders. 16. Immediate Open Access to the deposit would be desirable, but access to deposits can be embargoed, if there is a wish to comply with publisher embargoes on OA . 17. This compromise can and should be made, if necessary, in the interest of hastening and facilitating the universal adoption of immediate-deposit mandates by all institutions and funders. 18. (Institutional repositories' email-eprint-request Button is there to tide over user needs during embargoes.) 19. The other compromise that can and should be made, because it is indeed necessary, is *not to insist prematurely on further rights* -- over and above free online access -- that publishers are not yet willing to allow, such as text-mining, re-mix and re-publication rights. 20. First things first: Don't fail to grasp what's already within reach by over-reaching for what's not yet within reach: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 21. *Mandate institutional deposit -- and let harvesters harvest where and when they please.* On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Kiley, Robert <r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk>wrote: > Andrew > > Even if "deposit locally and then harvest centrally" is easy (and I would > argue that it makes far more sense to do it the other way round, not least > as a central repository like Europe PMC would have to harvest content from > potentially hundreds of repositories) the real problem is this content > typically cannot be harvested (and made available) for legal reasons. > > So, by way of example, if you look at the Elsevier archiving policy ( > http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/green-open-access) you will see > that archiving of the Accepted Author Manuscripts **is** permissible in > IR's (and somewhat curiously in Arxiv), but not elsewhere, like PMC or > Europe PMC. So, if we set out about harvesting content and then making it > available, we would receive take-down notices, which we would be obligated > to comply with. I use Elsevier in this example, but other publishers also > "monitor" PMC/Europe PMC and issue take-down notices as they deem > appropriate. > > A better approach, in my opinion, is to encourage deposit centrally, > where, not only can we convert the document into a more > preservation-friendly, XML format, but we can also have clarity as to > whether we can subsequently distribute the document to the relevant IR. > From April 2012, all Wellcome funded content that is published under a > "gold" model will be licenced using CC-BY, and as such, suitable for > redistribution to an IR (or indeed anywhere, subject to proper attribution). > > Regards > Robert > > > -----Original Message----- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On > Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams > Sent: 24 February 2013 12:18 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Murray-Rust, Peter > Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8 > Suggestions > > > Peter, > > Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I > think a bit confusingly named) systems. Too late to send a correction to an > organisation like the White House. Hopefully if anyone who understand it > well enough for it to be useful actually reads it, they will also spot and > discount the error. > > 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. It's easy > enough to automatically harvest/cross-deposit, and then one gets the best > of all worlds. Central deposit and then local harvest 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. 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. > > > -- > 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 > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email > Security - www.websense.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
