Re: Poynder Again on Point on Institutional Repositories

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:54:39 -0000

I agree with Richard Poynder's suggestion for a divorce between the *terms*
for the overarching institutional repository being considered by the library
community and the simple OA archive for published research articles. If both
activities have the same name there will be inevitable confusion. As others
are rightly saying, IRs may take a while to establish, may rightly be the
subject of intense discussion and will be costly, whereas the latter can be
done very simply and is low cost.

Richard proposes that the archives to hold the research publications of a
research group/organisation be called 'Open Access Archives' and the term
'Institutional Repository' be reserved for the campus-wide activity. OA
Archives is a term those of us working with developing countries have
generally used. It sits comfortably with Open Access Publishing, so we have
OAA (green, BOAI 1) and OAP (gold, BOAI 2).

I don't know the rights of different claims to the first use of the term
Institutional Repositories, but it would seem appropriate for the
all-embracing 'digital collections capturing and preserving the intellectual
output of a single or multi-university community' (Crow, 2002). I think to
separate the terms would help remove confusions among those new to the
topic.We are aware of the difficulties new-comers have in distinguishing
between open access, open access archiving, open access publishing and
institutional repositories (see the FAQ I worry about...) and an agreed
separation of terms would certainly help.

This is not to say that an IR cannot also embrace its OA Archive, as already
happens for example at CERN, QUT, Minho University and other dynamic
organisations ..... it is just to say that terms used to describe each could
usefully be separated.

Received on Mon Mar 06 2006 - 18:45:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:13 GMT