I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that there is something very
fundamentally wrong with the hypothetical cost comparison that Andy
Powell is contemplating (below): It is rather like asking whether it
would be cheaper to offload all storage and auditing of a
corporation's assets onto a global auditing entity rather than storing
and auditing them locally: Especially in the online age, when all we
are talking about is bits, it seems odd to be thinking in this way.
Brewster Kahle may have the disk space, but if his is to become the
global database, then why should individuals have local websites at
all? They could all set up shop in the Global Wayback Machine -- or,
for that matter, store directly in Google, saving it the trouble of
having to harvest!
Apart from going directly against the spirit and success of
distributed networking in the online digital era, it seems to me that
such global centralism would even carry risks. Not to mention that
with the plummeting cost and skyrocketing power of local computation
and disk storage capacity, globalism of anything but the most virtual
(i.e., harvested) kind seems to be a distinct anachronism today, both
financially and functionally: We don't need one real global digital
collection in the sky. A harvested, virtual one (or many) is enough.
I too have a hypothesis: I think Andy is basically still thinking of
IRs and CRs as being essentially for the sake of archiving and
preservation.
They are not! OA IRs are for immediate and ongoing online access-
provision. And their persistent emptiness is a problem of motivation,
not money. The interests and incentives are all there -- research
usage and impact -- and they are all local (and competitive). Those
interests and incentives simply need to be mobilized, at long last,
through the adoption of a sensible institutional policy that
explicitly capitalizes upon and caters for them.
Universal (local) university self-archiving mandates, tied to research
performance review, are that sensible policy. Brewster Kahle's global
Internet Archive (invaluable as it is for digital preservation) has
absolutely nothing to do with it.
Stevan Harnad
On 10-Mar-08, at 5:11 AM, Andy Powell wrote:
> Well, I hope that you are right... I certainly don't have the will or
> ability to fight a political and technical agenda that has become so
> entrenched worldwide and that says there is only one 'right' way of
> achieving OA.
>
> And just to be clear, I think we share the same aim - 100% OA to
> research output - my concern lies only with whether we are getting
> there
> most effectively. And, like you I guess, I'm frustrated by lack of
> progress.
>
> I think the *total* financial spend on the IR-based OA solution is
> pertinent... though, as I said, I have no way of assessing how much is
> being spent worldwide (by funding bodies, institutions and others) on
> IRs.
>
> What if we took all that money, gave it to someone like Brewster Kahle
> (assuming he was interested) and said, "here, we want to work with you
> to build a single global repository for all scholarly research output
> worldwide"?
>
> To suggest such a thing even 2 or 3 years ago would have been
> laughable.
> But to suggest it now would be completely in line with what is
> happening
> elsewhere on the Web. Well, I guess it might be laughable for other
> reasons... but whether it is or not is largely irrelevant because we
> appear to have so much political investment in the IR solution that
> I'm
> not convinced we are willing to give serious consideration to any
> other
> approach.
>
> 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: 09 March 2008 13:09
> > To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving: 6 Mantras
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Andy Powell wrote:
> >
> > > You can repeat the IR mantra as many times as you like...
> > it doesn't
> > > make it true.
> >
> > I'd settle for a substantive reply to the substantive points,
> > empirical and logical (however repetitive they may be)...
> >
> > > Despite who knows how much funding being pumped into IRs
> > globally (can
> > > anyone begin to put a figure on this, even in the UK?),
> >
> > Plenty of figures have been posted on how much money
> > institutions have wasted on their (empty) IRs in the eight
> > years since IRs began. People needlessly waste a lot of money
> > on lots of needless things. The amount wasted is of no
> > interest in and of itself.
> >
> > The relevant figure is: How much does it actually cost to set
> > up an OA IR and to implement a self-archiving mandate to fill
> > it. For the answer, you do not have to go far: Just ask the
> > dozen universities that have so far done both: The very first
> > IR-plus-mandate was a departmental one (at Southampton ECS)
> > but the most relevant figures will come from university-wide
> > mandated IRs, and for that you should ask Tom Cochrane at QUT
> > and Eloy Rodrigues at Minho.
> >
> > And then, compare the cost of that (relative to each
> > university's annual research output) with what it would have
> > cost (someone: who?) to set up subject-based CRs (which?
> > where? how many?) for all of that same university annual
> > research output, in every subject) willy-nilly worldwide, and
> > to ensure (how?) that it was deposited in its respective CR.
> >
> > (Please do not reply with social-theoretic mantras but with
> > precisely what data you propose to base your comparative
> > estimate upon!)
> >
> > > most remain
> > > largely unfilled and our only response is to say that
> > funding bodies
> > > and institutions need to force researchers to deposit when they
> > > clearly don't want to of their own free will. We haven't (yet)
> > > succeeded in building services that researchers find
> > compelling to use.
> >
> > We haven't (yet) succeeded in persuading researchers to
> > publish of their own free will: So instead of waiting for
> > researchers to wait to find compelling reasons to publish, we
> > review and reward their research performance for publishing
> > ("publish or perish").
> >
> > We also haven't (yet) succeeded in persuading researchers to
> > publish research that is important and useful to research
> > progress: So instead of waiting for researchers to wait to
> > find compelling reasons to maximise their research impact, we
> > review and reward research performance on the basis not just
> > of the number of publications, but publication impact metrics.
> >
> > Mandating that researchers maximise the potential usage and
> > impact of their research by self-archiving it in their own
> > IR, and reviewing and rewarding their doing so, seems a quite
> > natural (though long
> > overdue) extension of what universities are all doing already.
> >
> > > If we want to build compelling scholarly social networks (which is
> > > essentially what any 'repository' system should be) then we
> > might be
> > > better to start by thinking in terms of the social networks that
> > > currently exist in the research community - social networks
> > that are
> > > largely independent of the institution.
> >
> > Some of us have been thinking about these "social networks"
> > since the early 1990's and we have noted that -- apart from a
> > very few communities where they formed spontaneously early on
> > -- most disciplines have not followed the examples of thesefew
> > communities in the ensuing decade and a half, even after
> > repeatedly hearing the mantra (Mantra 1) urging them to do
> > so, along with the empirical evidence of its evidence
> > beneficial effects on research usage and impact (Mantra 2).
> >
> > Then the evidence from the homologous precedent and example
> > of (a) the institutional incentive system underlying
> > publish-or-perish as well as (b) research metric assessment,
> > was reinforced by Alma Swan's JISC surveys that found that
> > (c) the vast majority of researchers report that they would
> > not do it spontaneously of their own accord if their
> > institutions and/or funders did not require it (mainly
> > because they were busy with their institutions' and funders'
> > other priorities), 95% of them would self-archive their
> > research if their institutions and/or funders were to require
> > it -- and over 80% of them would do so *willingly* (Mantra
> > 3). And then Arthur Sale's empirical comparisons of what
> > researchers actually do when such requirements are and are
> > not implemented fully confirmed what the surveys said that
> > the research (across all disciplines and "social networks"
> > worldwide) had said they would and would not do (Mantra 4).
> >
> > So I'd say we should not waste another decade and a half
> > waiting for the fabled "social networks" to form
> > spontaneously so the research community can at last have the
> > OA that has already been demonstrated to be feasible and
> > beneficial to them.
> >
> > > Oddly, to do that we might do well to change our thinking about how
> > > best to surface scholarly content on the Web to be both 1)
> > > user-centric (acknowledging that individual researchers
> > want to take
> > > responsibility for how they surface their content, as
> > happens, say, in
> > > the blogsphere) and 2) globally-centric (acknowledging that the
> > > infrastructure is now available that allows us to realise the
> > > efficiency savings and social network effects of
> > large-scale globally
> > > concentrated services, as happens in, say, Slideshare,
> > Flickr and so on).
> >
> > It is odd indeed that all these wonders of technology, so
> > readily taken up spontaneously when people are playing
> > computer games or blabbing in the blogosphere have not been
> > systematically applied to their ergonomic practices, but the
> > fact is that they have not been, and we have waited more than
> > long enough. That systematic application is precisely what
> > the now-growing wave of OA self-archiving mandates by funders
> > (such as RCUK and NIH) and universities (such as Southampton
> > and Harvard) is meant to accelerate and ensure.
> >
> > > Such a change in thinking does not rule the institution out of the
> > > picture, since the institution remains a significant
> > stakeholder with
> > > significant interests... but it certainly does change the
> > emphasis and
> > > direction and it hopefully stops us putting institutional
> > needs higher
> > > up the agenda than the needs of the individual researcher.
> >
> > Individual researchers do not work in a vacuum. That is why
> > we have institutions and funders. Those "research networks"
> > already exist. As much as we may all admire the spontaneous,
> > anonymous way in which (for
> > example) Wikipedia is growing, we also have to note the
> > repeatedly voiced laments of those academics who devote large
> > portions of their time to such web-based activities without
> > being rewarded for it by their institutions and funders
> > Mantra 5. OA self-archiving mandates are precisely the bridge
> > between the existing canonical "social networks" and reward
> > systems of the scholarly and scientific community -- their
> > universities and research funders -- and the new world that
> > is open before them.
> >
> > It is time we crossed that bridge, at long last (Mantra 6).
> >
> > 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/
> >
Received on Mon Mar 10 2008 - 10:21:14 GMT