Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

From: Andy Powell <andy.powell_at_EDUSERV.ORG.UK>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 17:41:04 -0000

This topic may well have been discussed since 1999 - unfortunately much of that discussion (at least at a technical level) has not acknowledged that the Web has changed almost immeasurably between then and now. Web 2.0, social networks, Amazon S3, the cloud, microformats, Google sitemaps, REST, the Web Architecture, ... I could go on.

The technical landscape is now so completely different to what it was when the OAI-PMH was first discussed that it makes no sense to apply a 1999 design approach to the space, which is effectively what we are doing.

Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
andy.powell_at_eduserv.org.uk
+44 (0)1225 474319 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list 
> [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 08 March 2008 12:07
> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
> 
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Atanu Garai/Lists wrote:
> 
> > Dear Colleagues
> > This question is very basic. Institutions all over the world are 
> > developing their own repositories to archive papers written 
> by staffs. 
> > On the other hand, it is very much feasible to develop thematic and 
> > consortia repositories wherein authors all over the world 
> can archive 
> > their papers very easily. Both the approaches have their 
> own pros and 
> > cons. However, having few big thematic (e.g. subject based) and/or 
> > consortia (e.g. Indian universities archive) repositories is more 
> > advantageous than maintaining hundreds of thousands small 
> IRs, taking 
> > cost, management, infrastructure and technology considerations. 
> > Moreover, knowledge sharing and preservation becomes easier 
> across the 
> > participating individuals and institutions in large IRs. If this 
> > advantages are so obvious, it is not understandable why there is so 
> > much advocacy for building IRs in all institutions?
> 
> Not only are the advantages of central repositories (CRs) 
> over institutional repositories (IRs) not obvious, but the 
> pro's of IRs vastly outweigh those of CRs on every count:
> 
> (1) The research providers are not a central entity but a 
> worldwide network of independent research institutions 
> (mostly universities).
> 
> (2) Those independent institutions share with their own 
> researchers a direct (and even somewhat competitive) interest 
> in archiving, evaluating, showcasing, and maximizing the 
> usage and impact of their own research output. (Most 
> institutions already have IRs, and there are provisional 
> back-up CRs such as Depot for institutionally unaffiliated 
> researchers or those whose institutions don't yet have their 
> own IR.) http://roar.eprints.org/ http://deposit.depot.edina.ac.uk/
> 
> (3) The OAI protocol has made all these distributed institutions'
> repositories interoperable, meaning that their metadata (or 
> data) can all be harvested into multiple central collections, 
> as desired, and searched, navigated and data-mined at that 
> level. (Distributed archiving is also important for 
> mirroring, backup and preservation.)
> 
> (4) Deposit takes the same (small) number of keystrokes 
> institutionally or centrally, so there is no difference 
> there; but researchers normally have one IR whereas the 
> potential CRs for their work are multiple. (The only "global" 
> CR is Google, and that's harvested.) 
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/
> 
> (5) The distributed costs of institutional self-archiving are 
> certainly lower than than maintaining CRs (how many? for what 
> fields? and who maintains them and pays their costs?), 
> particularly as the costs of a local IR are low, and they can 
> cover all of an institution's research output as well as many 
> other forms of institutional digital assets.
> 
> (6) Most important of all, although research funders can 
> reinforce self-archiving mandates, the natural and universal 
> way to ensure that IRs (and hence harvested CRs) are actually 
> filled with all of the world's research output, funded and 
> unfunded, is for institutions to mandate and monitor the 
> self-archiving of their own research output, in their own 
> IRs, rather than hoping it will find its way willy-nilly into 
> external CRs.
> http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
> 
> This topic has been much discussed since in the American 
> Scientist Open Access Forum. See the topic threads "Central 
> vs. Distributed Archives" (since 1999) and "Central versus 
> institutional self-archiving".
> 
> See also:
> 
>      Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C.,
>      O'Brien, A., Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S. (2005) 
> Developing
>      a model for e-prints and open access journal content in 
> UK further
>      and higher education. Learned Publishing, 18 (1). pp. 25-40.
>      http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000/
> 
>      Harnad, S. (2008) Optimize the NIH Mandate
>      Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest
>      Centrally. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15002/
> 
>      Harnad, S. (2008) How To Integrate
>      University and Funder Open Access Mandates.
>      http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html
> 
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
> Access-Forum.html
>      http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
> 
> UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
> If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing 
> Open Access to your own research article output, please 
> describe your policy at:
>      http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
>      http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
>      http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
> 
> OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
>      BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable 
> toll-access journal
>      http://romeo.eprints.org/
> OR
>      BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access 
> journal if/when
>      a suitable one exists.
>      http://www.doaj.org/
> AND
>      in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of 
> your article
>      in your own institutional repository.
>      http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
>      http://archives.eprints.org/
>      http://openaccess.eprints.org/
> 
> 
> > Thank you for reflecting on this issue.
> > Best
> > Atanu Garai
> > Online Networking Specialist
> > Globethics.net
> > International Secretariat:
> > 150, route de Ferney
> > CH-1211 Geneva 2
> > Switzerland
> > Tel: 41.22791.6249/67
> > Fax: 41.22710.2386
> > New Delhi Contact:
> > Tel: 91.98996.22884
> > Email: garai_at_globethics.net
> >           atanu.garai_at_gmail.com
> > Web: www.globethics.net
> > 
> >
> 
Received on Sat Mar 08 2008 - 17:42:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:15 GMT