The EPrints software *does* allow deposited papers to be removed instantly
by the author/depositor.
Whether it is the author/depositor who can remove the paper or a
mediator/moderator/approver is a matter of individual IR policy, not
of software capability. It is merely a permissions parameter-setting on
the software.
At a time when IRs' problem is not removal but deposit (IRs are mostly
empty), I strongly recommend that departments and institutions *drop*
the foolish and unnecessary mediator/moderator/approver phase, and set
the parameter so that authorised institutional users (i.e., all employed
researcher/authors) can deposit/approve and delete/approve their own
papers, instantaneously.
There is no need to make the simple deposit process seem complicated
or threatening by interposing a moderator into the deposit and removal
procedure.
(If it is felt that there is a need for vetting deposits, let the deposits
be *monitored*, and let the deposits [not the removals] be over-ruled by
the monitor, as and when needed (plagiarism, libel, quackery), *after*
the deposit by the authorised institutional researcher/author, not before
[when it would needlessly hold up the deposit and frustrate authors who
need encouragement today -- not the opposite, with foolish, arbitrary
rules and delays].)
As to the worry about withdrawal in general: We are talking here about
(i) unrefereed preprints and (ii) refereed postprints of published
articles. The distinction needs to be borne clearly in mind, in setting
IR policy:
UNREFEREED PREPRINTS: If you want authors to be willing to deposit
their unrefereed *preprints* at all, you *must* allow them to remove
them at will, instantaneously.
(It is a good and useful author practice to self-archive preprints:
it establishes priority, it elicits corrective peer feedback, it
creates a historic record of stages of development of a work, it
accelerates and increases research impact and progress. But if the
institution imposes a foolishly oppressive removal policy, authors
will simply be discouraged from taking the useful step of depositing
their unrefereed preprints in the first place).
PEER-REVIEWED POSTPRINTS: Here the *fact* is that 99% of the time
authors will never want to remove them. They are published. The
postprint is merely a *supplement* to the published version, for those
would-be users who cannot afford access to the published version. The
published version (at the publisher's website) cannot be withdrawn;
so withdrawing the access-supplement in the author's own IR is in
general pointless.
The (two) rare cases when it might be necessary to remove a postprint
are these (the second turns out to be bogus too):
(1) if an error is discovered in the author's self-archived
version, and the author does not wish to just add an updated
version, to be tagged as the latest version, but to remove
the erroneous version too: this is reasonable, and can and
should be facilitated by the IR policy and parameter-settings,
not deterred; the original URL will become null, with a redirect
to the new version;
(2) if the author has a (probably unnecessary) panic-attack about
copyright after deposit: but here the removal should be *strongly*
discouraged, because downgrading *access* -- from Open Access
to Closed Access -- is instead the sensible option. Then the
metadata remain visible, the full-text remains in the archive (but
invisible) and the author can individually authorise eprints on a
case by case basis to be emailed by the IR software to would-be
users who request it semi-automatically via the EMAIL-EPRINT
button (already implemented on both the GNU EPrints and the
DSpace IR software).
http://www.eprints.org/news/features/request_button.php
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
UNIFIED DUAL 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 a 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 institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Nockels, K.H. wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for your responses to my question. I asked, on the 7th
> August, if anyone had a takedown procedure that they would be willing to
> share.
>
> The responses included these examples or suggestions:
>
> University of Stirling:
> http://www.is.stir.ac.uk/research/repository/policy.php#removal
>
> Graph Drawing E-Print Archive (sent to me by OpenDOAR): "Papers can be
> removed. Unfortunately the ePrint software does not allow you to remove
> papers automatically. Removal is initiated with a removal request,
> accessible through the links \"Deposit Papers\" -->
> \"Review your documents in the archive\". Archive staff will
> then remove the paper as quickly as possible. All requests for removal
> will be honored, although we encourage you to leave preprints posted for
> stability of the archive\'s contents"
>
> Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institutional Repository
> (via OpenDOAR): "HKUST Library foresees that there may be times when it
> will be necessary to remove items from the repository. It has been
> decided that when specifically requested to do so by the author, items
> will be removed from view. But, to retain the historical record, such
> transactions will be noted in the metadata record. Since any Repository
> item that has existed at some time may have been cited, we will always
> supply a \"tombstone\" when the item is requested, which will
> provide a withdrawal statement in place of the link to the object. The
> metadata should be visible, but not searchable. These items will be made
> unavailable for metadata harvesting"
>
> University of Melbourne ePrints Repository (via OpenDOAR): "The
> intention is to create a permanent archive of research output; however,
> there is the option to remove papers in any of the following
> circumstances :If the journal in which a paper is formally published
> requires it If the paper proves scurrilous, plagiarizes, is libelous or
> breaches copyright If the academic author decides to remove it"
>
> Jorum's Notice and Takedown Procedure:
> http://www.jorum.ac.uk/contributors/index.html (see the bottom of
> "useful links").
>
> HEFCE's guidance on intellectual property rights in e-learning
> programmes mentions take down procedures:
> http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2006/06_20/
>
> In the future, OpenDOAR will be featuring more data on policies.
>
> Thank you for your help,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Keith
>
> Keith Nockels
> Leicester Research Archive Project Manager
>
> University of Leicester Library
> Leicester, England - UK
> Tel. +44 (0)116 252 3101
> Email: lra_at_le.ac.uk
>
> Leicester Research Archive: promoting the University's research.
> Visit http://www.le.ac.uk/li/lra/ for more information.
>
Received on Fri Aug 11 2006 - 15:26:07 BST