In response to my comment that "If you want tohave a sustainable, filling
IR, the responsibility for deposit lies with the authors", Jean-Claude
Guedon wrote::
> To follow this completely, I would need the empirical evidence. Has
> anyone done this kind of analysis? I am interested.
Serendipity! Your question jogged my memory and reminded me that I have the
results of a small survey of European repository managers waiting for
analysis. I have now carried out a v.quick analysis of the relevant
questions. The total number of responses from institutional respository
managers was 42, plus one from the managers of the French HAL
hyper-repository which I have not included in the figures below because it
is very different from institutional repositories, accepting both direct
deposits from authors at some institutions and batch deposits from other
French research institutions with their own repository.
The survey had a question asking how easy it had been to collect content
into the repository. I used the answers from that and cross-analysed those
against the answers to three other questions:
- who deposits the items in the repository
- who creates the metadata
- what kind of open access policy the institution has
I apologise for having to describe the results in words only. Normally I
would do this graphically too, to make eyeballing easy, but I can't do that
here. Anyway, here are the findings (and no, the numbers don't always add up
to 42 because as with all surveys not everyone answered every question):
1. Comparing the difficulty of collecting content for IRs with (a) no
institutional policy, (b) encouragement only and (c) mandatory deposit:
1a. Repositories with no institutional policy for the repository:
- Repositories finding it very easy or fairly easy to collect content: 1
- Repositories finding it very difficult or fairly difficult to collect
content: 6
- Repositories finding it possible but not easy to collect content: 8
1b. Repositories with an institutional policy encouraging authors to make
their work open access:
- Repositories finding it very easy or fairly easy to collect content: 2
- Repositories finding it very difficult or fairly difficult to collect
content: 3
- Repositories finding it possible but not easy to collect content: 9
1c. Repositories with a mandatory institutional policy on open access:
- Repositories finding it very easy or fairly easy to collect content: 5
- Repositories finding it very difficult or fairly difficult to collect
content: 0
- Repositories finding it possible but not easy to collect content: 1
Conclusion: The IRs with mandated deposit have the least difficulty
collecting content.
2. Comparing the difficulty of collecting content for IRs that have deposit
by (a) authors only, (b) librarians only (c) both:
2a. Repositories that require authors to deposit items themselves:
- Repositories finding it very easy or fairly easy to collect content: 5
- Repositories finding it very difficult or fairly difficult to collect
content: 2
- Repositories finding it possible but not easy to collect content: 4
2b. Repositories where repository/library staff deposit items:
- Repositories finding it very easy or fairly easy to collect content: 0
- Repositories finding it very difficult or fairly difficult to collect
content: 2
- Repositories finding it possible but not easy to collect content: 2
2c. Repositories where both authors and repository staff can deposit items:
- Repositories finding it very easy or fairly easy to collect content: 0
- Repositories finding it very difficult or fairly difficult to collect
content: 0
- Repositories finding it possible but not easy to collect content: 4
Conclusion: The IRs with author-only deposit have the least difficulty
collecting content.
3. Comparing the difficulty of collecting metadata for IRs with author
deposit vs. librarian deposit:
3a. Repositories that have found it very easy or fairly easy to collect
content:
- Require authors to create metadata themselves: 9
- Repository/library staff create the metadata: 1
3b. Repositories that have found it very difficult or fairly difficult to
collect content:
- Require authors to create metadata themselves: 7
- Repository/library staff create the metadata: 2
3c. Repositories that have found it possible but not easy to collect
content:
- Require authors to create metadata themselves: 18
- Repository/library staff create the metadata: 2
Conclusion: The IRs with author deposit have the least difficulty collecting
metadata.
Now that I've been reminded of this survey I shall put out another call for
responses. It was specifically designed to compare European repository
experiences with the largish study carried out by Charles Bailey and
colleagues on US repositories and published by the ARL (SPEC Kit 292). What
I haven't done is delve into the registries of repositories, find the
biggest ones and ask the managers how things get into their database. Over
to you, Jean-Claude.
I also encourage anyone interested in this topic to read the very
informative and insightful paper on the topic by Les Carr and Tim Brody,
'Size isn't everything: sustainable repositories as evidenced by sustainable
deposit profiles' here:
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13872/
AS:
> > I think the 'berating' is actually a style thing. Think of it as
> > 'putting the case for a better model'.
J-CG:
> I would respond to this by quoting Buffon: "Le style, c'est
> l'homme"... There are styles of behaviour that become downright
> counter-productive. Hint. Hint.
Indeed. But we are all of us subject to the frailties of human nature. Heirs
of Descartes should be able to stay focused on the substance of an argument
without being distracted by the style.
J-CG:
> The presence of more
> than one model complicates the picture and presumably slows down the
> process but, regrettable as it may seem, this is what humanity is all
> about. It is called "politics" by the way and it is always messy and
> impure. However, impurity is not a reason to start working for OA so
> long as we do not confuse the quest for purity with the quest for OA.
Messy and impure for sure, but I would suggest that the history of political
thought shows a pattern of twisting, turning, reversion, reneging and
modifying all driven by expediency (viz the NIH developments, which started
in one form and ended up as a better one). Nothing in politics is set in
stone except the will to tax the people. We can always work to change and
improve politically-driven agendas.
J-CG:
> I never advocated making thins muddle along. My cultural background,
> for better of for worse, is far too Cartesian...
> :-) But between muddling through in a sleepwalkin way and seeking the
> pure path to OA there exists a wide margin. I do not want to
> compromise the objectives of OA in any way (including, incidentally,
> the computational openness of digital documents that Cliff Lynch
> wisely calls for) but I will accept travelling on any road that brings
> me closer to the goal.
And that reminds us that we should all reflect carefully upon the
implications of embargoed deposit by publishers of their own PDFs. Clue:
Cliff Lynch, talking about the mechanics of text-mining (pers comm, 2006),
"PDF is evil".
Alma Swan
Key Perspectives Ltd
Truro, UK
Received on Sun Jul 27 2008 - 15:26:06 BST