On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude
<jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no
drive on his part against "institution-external OA
repositories" and then proceed to state point 4?
To repeat:
No drive against institution-external OA repositories, just a drive
against MANDATING DIRECT DEPOSIT in institution-external OA
repositories.
(Deposit mandates should be convergent, on institutional OA
repositories, not divergent; then institution-external OA
repositories can harvest the deposits from the institutional OA
repositories.)
Reason:
To facilitate instead of retarding the scaling up to universal OA.
(It would save readers a lot of time and bandwidth if those rushing
to proclaim "Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy"
would first take the trouble to understand what Harnad is saying on
OA deposit and APA policy...)
Stevan Harnad
-------- Message d'origine--------
De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de
Stevan Harnad
Date: mar. 22/07/2008 15:44
À:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit
and APA policy
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris
<Chris.Armbruster_at_eui.eu>
wrote in SOAF:
I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that
exists: large,
functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any
service to the OA
movement.
(1) No drive against institution-external OA
repositories, just a drive for
mandating direct deposit in institutional OA repositories
instead of
institution-external ones -- into which the institutional
repository
contents can then be harvested.
(2) Institutions are the research-providers (of all of
OA's target research
output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines,
institutions and
countries).
(3) Institutions are in the position to mandate and
monitor the deposit of
all their own research output (funded and unfunded,
across all
disciplines) in their own OA institutional repositories.
(4) Funder OA mandates need to converge with and
reinforce institutional OA
mandates, rather than diverge from or compete with them,
so as to facilitate
a coherent transition to universal OA.
Chris keeps talking about the functional benefits of
central services, which
are neither disputed by anything I am saying nor
diminished in the least by
the locus of deposit I am urging. Meanwhile Chris
completely overlooks th
real problem of OA, which is getting the content
provided.
Convergent institutional and funder mandates will
facilitate and accelerate
this OA content provision; divergent ones will needlessly
complicate and
retard it.
(APA has, as predicted, withdrawn its proposed $2500
surcharge for
institution-external deposit, and continues to be Green
on immediate deposit
in the institutional OA repository, without charge, as it
has been since
2002.)
"The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH
Is"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Armbruster, Chris
<Chris.Armbruster_at_eui.eu>
wrote:
Stevan Harnad keeps on claiming that the natural and only
sensible locus for
> Green OA deposits is the institutional repositories. He
says we must fill
> the institutional repositories first. He also claims
that any kind of
> service based on repositories (like SSRN, RePEc,
CiteSeerX, Arxiv, PMC,
> European Research Paper Archive etc.) will then take
care of itself. The
> proposed solutions is centralised harvesting, inlcuding
harvesting from IRs
> to PMC.
>
> Steven Harnad is currently publicly applauding the
policy of the APA
> (American Psychological Association), which wishes to
charges authors USD
> 2500 for NIH-compliant OA deposit in PMC, but leaves
standing an earlier
> policy that enables Green OA deposit in the author's IR
for free.
>
> Given the APA stance, is it conceivable that they would
watch as all
> manuscripts are harvested by PMC (as a 'third-party'
provider, like Harnad
> likes to call them) to provide service? The logical
corollary of the APA
> policy is to slap on conditions that prevent
harvesting, for why else would
> they seek to prevent deposit in PMC in the first place?
Now, we may
> speculate on whether APA will back down or not, but the
fundamental point is
> this one:
> You cannot applaud efforts to prevent Green OA
archiving in large,
> functional repositories that have a decent service for
scholars and then say
> we must all deposit in the individual IRs, which are
little more than a
> storage facility, and then claim that - as in a miracle
- functionality and
> service will emerge. The point of APA's policy is to
try to prevent that
> Green OA will ever become functional and meaningful.
>
> I fail to see how Harnad's drive against the best that
exists: large,
> functional and service-oriented repositories, is of any
service to the OA
> movement.
>
> Chris Armbruster
>
> http://ssrn.com/author=434782
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 23 2008 - 19:02:07 BST