1. Almost all research intensive universities in the world now have
repositories. I am sorry if yours doesn't. The remaining non-research
oriented universities will follow suit if it suits them, and there
are at most 10,000 of them.
2. I accept there are a few thousand scholars with no university or
research lab institutional affiliation. I myself exist on the fringe
of UTas as a retired Emeritus Professor. Consortial arrangements will
take care of this when we reach near 100% capture (such as the
Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery - a primary source of key botanical
and zoological data) - well say 80%. Arguing for 10-15% is a
3. Your third argument is true but silly. It simply does not make
sense. IRs are primary as they link to researcher output, CRs and
publishers are secondary.
University of Tasmania
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
On Behalf Of Klaus Graf
Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 5:00 AM
Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Fwd: Repositories:
Institutional or Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Liège]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Klaus Graf <klausgraf_at_googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? [in French,
Rector's blog, U. Liège]
(1) Please consider that most universites worldwide doesn't have IRs.
(2) Please take into account that thousands of scholars have NO
university affiliation. (I cannot see that my idea to open IRs for
alumni research has get any feedback.)
(3) IR managers can take all eprints from institution-affiliated
scholars which are libre OA (under CC-BY or CC-BY-NC/ND) and
on a publisher's website or in a CR/TR. This is one reason why gratis
OA isn't enough.
Received on Fri Feb 06 2009 - 02:18:43 GMT