Forwarding from JISC-REPOSITORIES.
Begin forwarded message: > From: Sue Gardner <sgardn...@unl.edu> > Date: September 16, 2014 at 8:42:22 PM GMT+1 > To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > Subject: Fw: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster > Reply-To: Sue Gardner <sgardn...@unl.edu> > > Stevan, > > Apologies for a delayed response. I have been meaning to reply, and now have > time. > > You have asked some questions of us at UNL. Paul Royster may reply, as well. > These are my thoughts. > > "(1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal > articles (only) per year is deposited in the N-L Repository? > "(Without that figure, there is no way of knowing how well N-L is doing, > compared to other institutional repositories, mandated or unmandated.)" > > You are requesting a certain metric and claiming that it is the only valid > one. We have approximately 75,000 items in our repository, almost all of > which can be read freely by anyone with an Internet connection. We also have > several dozen monographs under our own imprint, and we host several journals. > We don't devote too much of our time to analyzing our metrics, in part > because we are a staff of three (as of two weeks ago--before which we were a > staff of two), and we spend much of our time getting content into the > repository in favor of administrative activities. Personally, I welcome > anyone to analyze our output by any measure and I will be interested to know > the result, but that information won't change our day-to-day activities, so > it would remain off to the side of what we're doing. > > "(2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate?" > > We just don't see how -mandating- deposit would improve anything. You can > tell people what to do, and maybe they will do it--and, if they do, it's > probably not because you told them to. My feeling about it is: Am I serving > the needs of my constituents, i.e. the faculty? I feel strongly that I'm here > to facilitate access to their work, not to bear down on them with demands of > any kind. If it works for them, it works for me--not the other way around. > > "(3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?" > > I lump them together because they both result in a burden on the author that > I feel is best taken up by other constituencies. > > Author-pays results in a skewed body of work being published. I watch my > close colleagues in academic departments deal with this on a daily basis, and > it would be comical if it weren't so deadly serious. > > Author-pays, a scenario: The junior author has money from her institution to > go with an author-pays journal. The established author doesn't care about > impact factor and wants to go with a smaller, more regional journal. The > junior author insists that she must publish within a certain subset of > prestigious journals, so they submit to one of them. The reviewers that are > assigned know very little about the techniques that the authors are using, > but it gets pushed through with suggested revisions that the established > author knows border on ridiculous. The paper gets published and it's not what > the established author had ultimately envisioned, but there you have it. > > Self-archiving scenario: An established author has 170 papers going back to > 1984. Many of those either do not exist digitally or are not coming through > via interlibrary loan, despite several attempts. He has a stack of reprints. > He has some manuscripts in various files on his computer, but he's not sure > if they're pre-print or post-print. He is administering two large, > federally-funded projects, one of which takes him into the field for 2-3 > months per year. He teaches at least one class each semester. He runs the > weekly seminar for his department. He has three active PhD students, a > post-doc, and a master's student who needs a lot of mentoring. He holds two > officer positions on national boards that require his attendance at least > once a year. He is asked to review dozens of papers per year from for-profit > publishers (had to throw that in--all too true). Etc. ... [drum roll?] We > tell him has HAS TO deposit his papers into our institutional repository. > > Is this a person we can reasonably expect to self-archive his work into our > repository? Note that he has to understand the vagaries of copyright > permissions and post a legal version, or we are going to be doing work after > he has complied. > > If we do not mandate deposit, and if we offer mediated deposit (as opposed to > requiring self-archiving), this faculty member's work will be included in the > IR. If we mandate self-archiving, his work will remain in the deep archive > that is bound up in older, hard copy research. > > So, that is where I am coming from. I see what works and what doesn't, and > that's how I have formed my opinions. > > Sincerely, > > Sue Gardner > Scholarly Communications Librarian/Professor > University of Nebraska-Lincoln > Lincoln, Nebraska, 68588 USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu] On > Behalf Of LIBLICENSE > Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 6:05 PM > To: liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu > Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster > > From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 21:42:16 -0400 > > On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardn...@unl.edu> wrote: > > "As repository managers, many of us are having trouble envisioning getting > from where we are currently to what the original OA movement idealistically > proposed. This is due to the practical constraints we are faced with (such as > restrictive publishers’ policies including not allowing posting of published > versions even a decade and more after publication, lack of ready access to > authors’ manuscripts, etc.). The solutions being offered to move toward the > initial goal include author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, > CHORUS, SHARE, and others, which are—from my standpoint as a repository > manager—one-and-all ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying > degrees. > > "In populating our repository within the varied constraints, and in offering > non-mandated, mediated deposit, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln we are > taking a bottom-up approach to access (from the author to the reader) and, as > Paul Royster has pointed out, it leaves us in the odd position of actually > standing outside the OA movement as it is defined. We have seen forces gather > (led by publishers and others) that have further galvanized our peripheral > position. From my perspective, these forces intend that the initial vision of > OA will be realized on the backs of the authors themselves (with author-pays > schemes, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, etc.). > > "Should authors have to bear the brunt of the OA movement? To some extent, of > course, but ultimately that seems counterproductive since they are the ones > who generate the content. As librarians and as the in-house publishing unit > within the library, we work with, and for, authors daily and we help them get > their work out to readers. We assist with interpretation of permissions, > upload the work, and so on. > They create, we facilitate access to their creations. > > "In summary, in the discussions that have ensued on the various lists this > past week, I see a disconnect between what I experience on a daily basis > working with the IR and what we say as a community we are trying to achieve." > > Sue Gardner > Scholarly Communications Librarian > > ******* > > Three questions for Nebraska-Lincoln (N-L) Libraries, in order of importance: > > (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal > articles (only) per year is deposited in the N-L Repository? > > (Without that figure, there is no way of knowing how well N-L is doing, > compared to other institutional repositories, mandated or unmandated.) > > Simple way to estimate the above (but you have to keep track of both the > publication date and the deposit date): Sample total annual N-L output from > WoS or SCOPUS and then test what percentage of it is deposited (and when). > That can be benchmarked against other university repositories. > > (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? > > The right mandate — immediate-deposit of all refereed final drafts > immediately upon acceptance for publication — plus the request-copy Button > during any allowable publisher embargo interval — works (especially if > librarians keep mediating during the start-up and if deposit is designated as > the sole means of submitting articles for performance-review). Try it. > > (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives? > > They’re opposites… Only one of them is objectively describable as the "author > bearing the brunt” (and that’s having to shell out a lot of money — not just > do a few extra keystrokes -- or else give up journal-choice). > > Stevan Harnad > <Sue Ann Gardner.vcf>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
