On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, [identity deleted] wrote:
> I was interested in your 5. statement below re universities mandating
> self archiving in their institutional repositories. Can you expand upon
> this a bit? We are a Medical Library in an institution that receives NIH
> funding. I would like to be able to make a serious case for archiving
> in an institutional repository here, but am having trouble coming up
> with reasons why PubMed [Central] should not be the preferred choice.
The reason for institutional self-archiving is to cover all of research
output, in all fields, from all institutions. That is the goal of the
Open Access initiative.
(1) Mandating the self-archiving of NIH-funded articles in PubMedCentral
covers NIH-funded articles but it does not cover all fields, from all
institutions. The solution is for all institutions to mandate that all
their own research article output in all fields must be self-archived
in their own respective Institutional Repositories (IRs).
(2) The deposited articles that are based on research funded by NIH can
then also be exported to PubMed Central.
So it is not a matter of making PubMed [Central] the "non-preferred"
choice for deposit, but rather making the Institutional Repository the
universal choice for *direct* deposit. From there, deposits can also be
exported to or harvested by other Central Repositories if/when desired.
The universal mandate that will cover all of research output space
naturally, reliably, systematically and exhaustively, across all
fields and all institutions, worldwide, is:
Deposit Institutionally, Export/Harvest Centrally.
Both Institutions and Funders should therefore mandate Institutional
self-archiving.
"Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates:
What? Where? When? Why? How?"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
> > > > Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> 12/21/2007 4:55 PM >>>
>
> "Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates:
> What? Where? When? Why? How?"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
>
> This is from your greedy, never-satisfied Archivangelist:
>
> Now that the NIH Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate looks as if it will
> shortly be signed into Law:
>
> (1) There is no need to wait to implement the NIH mandate
>
> (2) There is no need to ape it: It can easily be optimised
>
> (3) There is no need to reserve Green OA self-archiving for NIH-funded
> biomedical research
>
> (4) All universities should mandate that all their research articles
> in all their disciplines are self-archived
>
> (5) There is no need to self-archive all those articles in PubMed
> Central: They should be self-archived in each university's own
> Institutional Repository
>
> (6) There is no need to allow deposit to be embargoed for 12
> months: Deposit should be mandated immediately upon acceptance
> for publication
>
> (7) Embargoed articles can be set as Closed Access during any embargo
>
> (8) Meanwhile the Institutional Repository will allow
> users webwide to email the author a semi-automatic request for an
> eprint for individual use immediately for any deposit that is not
> yet OA.
>
> This will provide either immediate OA (62%) or almost-immediate, almost-OA
> (38%) for all research articles in all disciplines.
>
> Summary of how to optimize the Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate:
>
> (I) Universities mandate deposit in their own Institutional
> Repositories.
> (II) Deposit is mandated immediately upon acceptance for publication.
> (III) The permissible embargo on the date the deposit is set as OA,
> not on the day the deposit is made.
>
> "Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates:
> What? Where? When? Why? How?"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-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/
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> > See Peter Suber's Open Access News:
> > Congress sends revised spending bill, and OA mandate for NIH,
> > to President
> > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/12/congress-sends-revised-spendi
> > ng-bill.html
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:48:48 -0000
> > > From: Alma Swan <a.swan -- talk21.com>
> > > Cc: 'Peter Suber' <peters -- earlham.edu>
> > >
> > > The Appropriations Bill, with the language in about the NIH mandate,
> > > passed
> > > in the US Senate last night. It now *will* be signed off by President
> > > Bush.
> > > See Heather's message below.
> > >
> > > Heather deserves huge congratulations...
> > > Now to try to emulate her in Brussels ...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Heather Joseph heather -- arl.org
> > > Sent: 20 December 2007 14:17
> > > To: Alma Swan; David Prosser
> > >
> > > Bill passed last night, and Bush will sign in next few days...
> >
>
Received on Mon Dec 31 2007 - 17:11:32 GMT