Re: Convergent IR Deposit Mandates vs. Divergent CR Deposit Mandates

From: Alma Swan <a.swan_at_TALK21.COM>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:03:45 +0100

Oh, Fred, I'm sorry to have unwittingly goaded you into responding. But...

Fred Friend wrote:
> Oh dear! I have avoided contributing to this discussion
> because it has saddened me to see so much disagreement about
> the various ways to achieve OA when we are all working so
> hard to achieve OA by any means possible, but I cannot leave
> Alma's comments on UKPMC unanswered. My understanding is that
> much of the content coming into UKPMC will be coming through
> publisher deposit,

But we were told in February that one of the main reasons the UKPMC deposit
rate was not as it should have been was that publishers who had agreed to
deposit, hadn't. Perhaps that is remedied by now.

Publisher deposit also firmly builds in embargoes when we want research
progress to be maximally speedy.

I do hope we are not going to agree to shift into the new scholcomm world by
replacing dependence on publishers for one thing with dependence on
publishers for another. Or, at least, not for something that means a
sub-optimal outcome for science. Embargoes are such. The research community
itself should recognise the responsibilities (and opportunities) it has and
shoulder them properly.

Alma Swan
Key Perspectives Ltd
Truro

P.S. If the depositing publishers deposit at publication and UKPMC makes the
metadata Open Access then I retract any expressions of fear expressed above.
But I don't know if this is the model adopted by UKPMC.
Received on Sat Jul 26 2008 - 11:10:02 BST