Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives

From: Hugo Fjelsted Alrĝe <>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:42:25 +0000


Dear Stevan

Just a question of clarification.

I have noticed that you lately recommend exclusively institutional eprint
archives and not (inter)disciplinary archives.

Why is that? What are the reasons for not recommending disciplinary
archives? As you well know, the most successfull archive we have seen
( is disciplinary, and there are a few others on the way.

If I am to guess, you might be thinking that authors can be pressured to
place their papers in institutional archives by making it a condition in
their employment contracts, or something similar. This pressure can also be
applied in at least some kinds of disciplinary archives (such as, by way of making the condition in the research grant.
And the motivation is straight forward: what the public pays for should be
made publicly available.

One possible benefit of (inter)disciplinary archives is that they can better
support a kind of 'community feeling' (which a journal can also sometimes
offer), and that this community feeling can help improve research

kind regards
Hugo Alroe

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Stevan Harnad []
> Sendt: 19. februar 2003 16:32
> Emne: Re: STM Talk: Open Access by Peaceful Evolution
> What researchers can and should do right now for OA is to self-archive
> their own refereed research output ("Self-Archive Unto Others As Ye
> Would Have Them Self-Archive Unto You") in their own institutional
> Eprint Archives, rather than to keel scolding publishers for not doing
> it for them -- *especially* as publishers (e.g., Elsevier) are
> now coming round to recognizing their own responsible role in all
> this, by formally supporting author/institution self-archiving:
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Feb 24 2003 - 16:42:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:52 GMT