Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude
<jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
> How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response?
> There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register.
A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy (Oct 2004)
Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy! (Jan 2005)
National Institutes of Health: Report on the NIH Public Access
Policy. In: Department of Health and Human Services (Jan 2006,
reporting 3.8% compliance rate after 8 months for its first,
non-mandatory deposit policy)
Central versus institutional self-archiving (Sep 2006)
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why?
How?(Sep 2006)
THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest
Centrally (Jan 2008)
Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest
Centrally (Jan 2008)
Yet Another Reason for Institutional OA Mandates: To Reinforce and
Monitor Compliance With Funder OA Mandates (Feb 2008)
How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates (Mar
2008)
One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind (Mar 2008)
NIH Invites Recommendations on How to Implement and Monitor
Compliance with Its OA Self-Archiving Mandate (Apr 2008)
Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central Repositories (Jun 2008)
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude
<jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> One more exercise of turning in circles. The main point is that the
NIH mandate does not affect at all the way in which institutional
repositories develop. If it did, I would like to have very precise
and concrete examples...
>
> Let's go once more:
>
> How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical
gap here which indeed does not register. And, as it is repeated twice
further on in Harnad's answer, one must assume it is one of his
strong but mysterious convictions that we must all follow or be
treated as heretics.
>
> The NIH mandate is quite effective as is. No need to spend so much
time to tweak it further.
>
> Saying that we must deposit first and think about retrieval later
is really not good planning. In fact it is quite naive.
>
> If they shop in PMC, why could they not search through PMC as well?
>
> The reference to direct deposit in Google is beside the point, of
course. If it is an attempt at humour or irony, it is just that: an
attempt.
>
> Researchers use PM to find articles, then go to PMC to retrieve
those articles that are in OA. Were they in other deposits, the
linkage would be more complex and more fragile.
>
> Finally, Harnad's conclusion is the one I was hoping to see: either
you follow my way very narrowly or you contribute to slowing down the
progress of OA. In other times and places, i suspect I would end up
on a wood pile for ultimate purification of my soul...
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine--------
> De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan
Harnad
> Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 13:51
> À: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA
policy
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude <
> jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> > I agree that a repository without a mandate is ineffective.
Consequently,
> > arguing that one is not against "institution-external OA
depositories"
> > while "driving against mandating direct deposit" is more than a
little
> > disingenuous.
>
> Perhaps if it is shorter, it will register:
>
> (1) I am and have always been an ardent and vocal supporter of
NIH's
> self-archiving mandate
>
> (2) I am arguing for one tiny but crucial change in its
implementational
> detail: stipulate deposit in IRs and harvest to PMC, rather than
direct
> deposit in PMC
>
> (3) Purpose: To facilitate universal institutional mandates,
covering all OA
> output, in all fields, funded and unfunded
>
> > Fighting against the mandate is tantamount to ensuring
ineffectiveness
> > which is of course what Harnad wishes for these
"institutional-external OA
> > depositories".
>
> I have no idea what disingenuous motives Jean-Claude is attributing
to me,
> or why.
>
> I am not fighting against the NIH mandate, I am fighting to make it
more
> effective.
>
> > The distributed solution of IRs remains flaky when it comes to
retrieving
> > articles.
>
> Let's get the articles deposited in there and we'll see how flaky
retrieval
> proves to be...
>
> > researchers in a given discipline like to go to a one-stop entry
point to
> > find their documentation.
>
> Fine, let them shop at PMC. But let direct deposit be in the IR,
with PMC
> harvesting therefrom.
>
> > Perhaps Google will be that universal entry point some time in
the future,
> > but this is not presently the case...
>
> Wherever OA content is deposited, that is where harvesters -- such
as
> Google, Oaister, Scirus, Scopus, Web Of Science, Citeseer, Citebase
-- or
> PMC -- can and will get it.
>
> Or do you think we should be depositing directly in google too?
>
> > For biomedical researchers, knowing that PubMed is the place for
> > bibliographic searches *and* document retrieval is a clear
advantage.
> > [this] amply justifies the decision by NIH to have the research
articles
> > they finance deposited in their depository.
>
> PM is not the same as PMC. PM links to PMC. And PMC contains only
the
> articles that have been made OA.
>
> Mandating OA is amply justified. Harvesting into PMC is amply
justified.
>
> Mandating direct deposit in PMC instead of IRs is arbitrary, has no
> intrinsic justification, and is counterproductive for the growth of
the rest
> of OA (across institutions and disciplines, funded and unfunded)
>
> > Furthermore, the NIH deposit does not prevent a parallel deposit
in the
> > local IR.
>
> If the problem were preventing deposits, rather than requiring
them, we
> would not need any sort of mandate.
>
> The point is that institutions are the research-providers -- of
> all research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded. Funder
mandates
> need to facilitate institutional mandates, not complicate them.
>
> > Finally, so long as solutions roughly work in the same direction,
let
> > us agree to support them all.
>
> Moving roughly in the direction of OA has already taken a decade
and a half.
> Let us resolve needless complications that simply delay it more.
>
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Jul 25 2008 - 00:50:41 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:23 GMT