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

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:47:43 -0400

The key way in which they are complementary is that IRs offer the opportunity to immediately expand coverage of a university's output in all subjects, including those for which there will not soon be CRs; CRs as currently being implemented in specific subject offer the opportunity to quickly add a wide range of institutions that would not soon themselves have IRs.

The combination strategy will get there sooner than working from one side exclusively.
The goal of course is to cover all subjects in all areas. If we could devote effort exclusively to the one that will get there sooner, the problem is that while we can guess, we cannot accurately predict which on would happen, so the wisest strategy is to divrsify our efforts.

My own bias for CRs is that a CR mandate from a single major funder can immediately bring in a great number of documents, while a single IR mandate will affect a smaller number. The mixed strategy now being advocated of encouraging centralized mandates for dispersed IRs has the disadvantage that any organisation that cares enough to mandate will likely want to have immediate first control of the material being deposited. Yes, we might be able to convince them otherwise, but we will make progress faster if we initially follow the lines of least resistance and accept such biases. We should get the papers in first however we can, and then optimise things as we have experience.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

dgoodman_at_princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Guédon Jean-Claude <jean.claude.guedon_at_UMONTREAL.CA>
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:23 am
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Convergent IR Deposit Mandates vs. Divergent CR Deposit Mandates
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG

> This may be true, Les, but, to my mind, this is not very
> significant.
>
> I have never bought the argument of limited resources which would
> force us all into the same mold. This said, I am glad that
> something like SWORD is coming along. While I serenely accept a
> certain degree of overlap and duplication, if only because it also
> provides a degree of extra robustness, I also like decreasing waste
> where possible, doable and significant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr
> Sent: Mon 7/28/2008 10:50 PM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Convergent IR Deposit Mandates vs. Divergent CR
> Deposit Mandates
>
> 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 - 23:31:49 BST