[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
What Mike says is indeed interesting. It fits within a more general
approach where, at various institutional levels, the administrative
procedures are based on what is available in the relevant
repository(ies). This approach can be extended to grant adjudication
and national evaluation exercises. For example, the research quality
framework in Australia, completed by the ASHER programme, does that
(if the new government chooses to continue with it): Australian
universities will see their research output evaluated in terms of
what is deposited in their institutional repository.
Mandates are fine wherever you can get them. Incentives are fine
wherever you can put them in place. Evaluative procedures based on
repositories offer a third way, somewhere between mandates and
incentives, to populate depositories. Get them wherever possible.
Clearly, all three approaches should be pushed forward as much as
possible. Should there be priorities? perhaps... Should a prioritized
solution lead to excluding the other approaches. IMHO, no!
Strictly speaking, Mike's account is still a little bit different:
the procedure does not explicitly rely on the repository, but the
repository advertises itself and makes itself useful by offering a
service to the procedure. Before long, we can expect that the
repository will become indispensable to the procedure because those
managing the procedure tend to follow a least-effort approach to just
about everything. The reliance on impact factors, however absurd it
may be, illustrates this trend. This is a most interesting tweak
where the initiative comes from the repository. I am not sure it
amounts to a policy but it certainly will influence policy in the
future.
Jean-Claude
Le dimanche 27 janvier 2008 à 03:53 +0000, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Culhane, Mike wrote:
> At my organization, publications lists used for promotion cases are
> generated from the repository. Therefore it's in the author's best
> interest to deposit their publications, and as a result we have close to
> 100% compliance.
Mike,
That's extremely interesting and sensible! Is the policy documented
anywhere, and would you consider registering it in ROARMAP?
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
Stevan
> ____________
> Mike Culhane
> Manager, Library/Internet Services
> Institute for Research in Construction
> National Research Council Canada
> Mike.Culhane -- nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
> http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> Sent: January 23, 2008 9:41 AM
> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Stimulating the Population of European Repositories results out
>
> Thank you for posting this information about the need for mandates. But
> I am wondering about the emphasis on mandating deposit. It seems that in
> our enthusiasm for securing a mandate at our institutions we neglect the
> other half of these policies; i.e., how is compliance to be monitored,
> and most importantly, how enforced? It would be useful if other
> institutions with mandates could share their solutions to these issues.
>
> many thanks
> Stephanie
> ____________________________
> Stephanie Meece
> Project Assistant
> Surrey Scholarship Online
> University of Surrey, Guildford
> http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/
>
Received on Sun Jan 27 2008 - 17:21:40 GMT