Re: Against Conflating OA Self-Archiving With Preservation-Archiving

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:23:06 -0400

Stevan is right that the responsibility for maintaiing a permanent record is the publishers'.
Furthermore, if they become unable, it is the national libraries; it is one of their intended functions. In
general, I'd say that both the publishers and the libraries are progressing towards a
coherent system--details to be discussed else, by those more knowledgeable than I.

However, the role of repositories should not be ignored: not only do they serve as backup,
but there are many scientific articles to be found nowhere else. Many papers
maintained on arXiv are never formally published; some authors may not intend to publish
further, and some may intend, but never actually do it?

Stevan, are not a good many results --including some of your own --to be found in the Soton ECS
repository that have not yet been published in full--and, if they are merely supporting
data, may quite appropriately never be?

With so many authors not being motivated by the argument of self-interest in getting
their work more citations, surely we should use other arguments as well. It is all too clear that
the same arguments persuading 15% of the authors may not seem persuasive
to the other 85%.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library

----- Original Message -----
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:42 am
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Against Conflating OA Self-Archiving With Preservation-

> -- With most researchers still unaware of Open Access (OA) self-
> archiving and how or why they should do it
> -- With only 15% of researchers self-archiving spontaneously of
> their own accord
> -- With research institutions and funders still dallying about
> whether and why to mandate self-archiving
> -- With the author's own final refereed draft a far less
> vulnerable target for opposition by the publisher lobby than the
> publishers' proprietary PDF
> This hardly seems the time to compound misunderstandings and try to
> ground the
> rationale for OA and self-archiving on an incoherent premise:
> "preservation"
> The author's final draft is not what needs the preservation, the
> author'sproprietary draft is.
> The purpose of OA self-archiving is not to *preserve* the published
> article, nor
> to *substitute* for it. It is to provide a *supplement* to it, for
> those would-be
> users who cannot afford access to the publisher's proprietary
> version, in order to
> maximize research usage and impact.
> It will not induce the 85% of researchers who do not now self-
> archive of their own
> accord to tell them that they should do it for the sake of
> preservation -- let alone
> preservation of their final authors' drafts in place of the
> publisher's PDF.
> It will not even induce enough researchers to self-archive to tell
> them they
> should do it for the real reason for OA, which is access/impact
> maximization, not
> author-draft preservation.
> Nor will it induce research institutions and funders to mandate
> self-archiving to
> tell them they should do it for the sake of preserving the author's
> final draft.
> Nor will it diminish the efforts of the publisher lobby to prevent
> author self-archiving mandates to say the mandates are for the sake
> of preserving the publisher's proprietary version: Publishers will
> simply (and correctly) point out that if preservation is the
> objective,then there is no reason whatsoever why the publisher's
> should be made
> Open Access! It need merely deposited in a (redundant) network of
> designated Deposit Libraries that guarantee (Closed Access) archiving
> and preservation (and that such measures are already on the way).
> OA self-archiving will be mandated for the rational reason for
> which it
> should be mandated: to maximize the usage and impact of research
> findingsby maximizing access to them -- by self-archiving author
> supplements in
> their own institutional repositories.
> Incoherent rationales and measures will just keep the long-overdue,
> optimal and inevitable outcome in limbo still longer.
> Some replies:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Keith Jeffery (CCLRC) wrote:
> > It is worth noting that an objection to open access voiced somewhat
> > commonly is that the author is not confident that their work
> output will
> > be preserved 'for all time'.
> When authors express this worry they are not talking about Open
> Access,nor about self-archiving, nor about their own final refereed
> drafts,but about the official published versions of their articles,
> currentlyin the hands of publishers and libraries.
> > Of course there is no guarantee with a
> > journal either but there is some confidence that research output
> > deposited with a respectable journal will continue to be available
> > (although in a digital age this may be less secure).
> And your point is...?
> > While I agree with Stevan that the primary objective is to rise
> from 15%
> > to 100% deposition of metadata and full (hypermedia) publication I
> > believe the word 'archive' is no bad thing as it gives authors the
> > 'feeling' of long-term preservation of their research output.
> You have just given a clear statement of the exact opposite: that
> depositing the
> author's final refereed draft has nothing to do with the
> preservation of the
> journal draft.
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Gareth Knight (Digital Preservation, SHERPA
> AHDS) added:
> > I agree with your desire to remain focussed on a set goal - 100%
> self> archived journal articles. However, I would disagree that
> open access and
> > preservation have nothing in common. At the risk of repeating an
> argument> that you will have heard many times in the past, digital
> preservation is
> > much simpler if appropriate actions are taken at the deposit stage.
> Deposit of *what*, *where*?
> Unrefereed preprints of articles are *submitted* to (not deposited
> with)the journal publisher. (Optionally, they may also be deposited
> in the
> author's institutional repository, but this is not the target of OA,
> or of self-archiving mandates: the refereed, accepted, final draft
> is.)
> The (successfully) refereed, final draft is likewise *submitted to*
> and *accepted by* the journal publisher. It is then copy-edited,
> marked-up, type-set and the final print and XML/PDF versions are sold
> to individuals and libraries as well as ware-housed (print version)
> and deposited (XML/PDF version) in publishers' proprietary archives as
> well as in Deposit Library archives, for preservation.
> But what deposited document, deposited where, are you referring to
> above? The author's refereed final draft (postscript), in the author's
> own Institutional Repository? What on earth does that have to do with
> the preservation of the publisher's proprietary XML/PDF?
> > Although preservation and open access advocates approach the
> subject with different
> > objectives, both access and preservation can be considered at the
> same time
> > and appropriate actions taken to satisfy both requirements.
> Approach *what* subject with different objectives? The subject and
> objective of open access is free online access to research findings,
> in order to maximize usage and impact. The subject and objective of
> digital preservation is the preservation of the digital version of the
> publisher's proprietary XML/PDF.
> How can both access and preservation be considered at the same time
> when we are
> talking about two different digital objects? How can action on one
> of these
> objects satisfy the requirements on the other?
> > A goal of the
> > Preserv and Sherpa DP projects is to encourage debate on the
> subject and,
> > more importantly, develop practical methods to preserve eprints,
> without> disrupting or distracting from existing efforts to make
> research content
> > accessible.
> By all means debate (but deposit first). And by all means develop
> methodsto preserve digital content ("eprints") -- whether they are
> authorpreprints, author postprints, or publisher proprietary XML/PDF.
> But do not conflate these efforts with the efforts to get the
> missing 85%
> of author postprints deposited, at long last, by mandating it.
> Confusingauthors and institutions about versions and purposes is
> not conducive to
> inducing deposits (or deposit mandates). Only a clear, coherent
> rationalecan accomplish that.
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Wed Jul 12 2006 - 20:59:27 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:26 GMT