I assume that your problems with harvesting repositories are the publisher objections on the principle that the *author* is allowed to decide to deposit in the appropriate place, but that a third party does not have the right to make a deposit independently of the author's wishes. (For the purposes of this post I am ignoring the damage done to the concept of "Open" Access by this distinction.)
Whatever reason, and I think that the huge variety of Web search engines and OAI-PMH services has shown that "potentially hundreds of repositories" is really no obstacle, the repository community has invested in the capability to make automated deposits on behalf of their users into centralised repositories such as PMC. The SWORD protocol has for several years been supported by arXiv and used internationally by EPrints, DSpace and Fedora institutional repositories. For more information, see "Use Case 4" in "SWORD: Facilitating Deposit Scenarios " available from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january12/lewis/01lewis.html This means that a sustainable distributed network of institutional repositories, where local support and investment is provided for a local community of scientists and scholars, can support and supplement the centralised repositories which already exist. --- Les Carr On 24 Feb 2013, at 13:23, "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
