Les,
When you say "reduces", doesn't SWORD quite simply eliminate such competition if implemented widely enough? That is, one could theoretically deposit simultaneously in multiple repositories, whether IR or CR or both. With an appropriate service, users could already be subscribed to these repositories, making it all seamless.
I know this depends on implementation, but SWORD is already with us, so please bear with me: the question that results from this inevitably is that this does seem to eliminate Stevan's difficulty with the locus of deposit. The requirement to deposit in a CR would no longer detract from deposit in an IR (because it would not require duplication of effort) or from efforts towards institutional mandates that can get us the rest of the content. Could this not at least help with Stevan's problem about the locus of deposit in the NIH mandate, if and when it is implemented appropriately?
Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this. Thanks,
Talat
-----Original Message-----
American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr
29 July 2008 03:50
On 27 Jul 2008, at 22:59, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
> Like the Green and Gold road, IR and CR are not in competition.
Like Green and Gold, IR and CR offer multiple pathways to Open Access
and so in that sense they ARE NOT in competition.
Unlike Green and Gold, IR and CR lead to OVERLAPPING and DUPLICATED
activity and so they most certainly ARE causing competition of limited
resources (time, attention, patience).
However, the SWORD protocol for automated deposits offers a technical
solution that reduces that element of pragmatic competition. What is
needed is the political will to adopt these solutions.
--
Les
Received on Tue Jul 29 2008 - 15:12:54 BST