I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two 
contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% 
OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that 
researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown 
themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, 
directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers 
appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be 
published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I 
cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories 
and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help 
achieve wish 1. 

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in 
Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

 

Andrew is so right. 

 

We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure 
reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the 
author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata 
in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has "fast lane" 
exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). 
Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.

 

Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust 
those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting 
-- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has 
already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by 
the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks 
to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.

 

Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without 
intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their 
deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.

 

P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before.

 

Dixit

 

Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all 
sides...

 

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams <a...@meiji.ac.jp 
<mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp> > wrote:


The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the
way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and
full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was
involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before
the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they
have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material
uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings
at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for
example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming
visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic
nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.

(*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why,
butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a
mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong
management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a
spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this
policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so
they're unwilling to give it a strong name.

--
Professor Andrew A Adams                      a...@meiji.ac.jp 
<mailto: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 <mailto: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

Reply via email to