On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, S.Jagger_at_roehampton.ac.uk wrote:
> What is an IR? What is an REF? What is an 'elevator pitch'? As a new
> Subject Head for my department, I find this type of email frustrating. If
> you are going to cross post, it would be nice if you provided a glossary
> for those of us uninitiated. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and
> makes me wonder why I subscribed to this establishment.
IR: Institutional Repository (for depositing research publication
output)
http://roar.eprints.org/
REF: The UK Research Excellence Framework (successor to the Research
Assessment Exercise, RAE).
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/ref/
"Elevator Pitch": "An elevator pitch (or elevator speech) is an overview
of an idea for a product, service, or project."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch
Open Access: Free only access to research publication output.
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/
Open Access Mandate: A requirement (by university or funder) to deposit
research publication output in OA IR.
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
Stevan Harnad
> Many thanks.
>
> Suzy Jagger
> Subject Head, Computing
> Room QB022
> Ext 3641
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Council of Professors and Heads of Computing in UK universities
> [mailto:cphc-members_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 12 October 2008 16:57
> To: cphc-members_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Explaining and Justifying a Mandate
>
> Apologies for cross-posting, but this brilliant list from Andrew Adams
> deserves wide circulation! Some references and suggested addenda
> below:
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Andrew A. Adams
> <a.a.adams_at_reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > After about four years (which pales besides the length of service to OA
> > of
> > many on this list) of seriously pushing my University (University of
> > Reading
> > in the UK) they're finally going ahead with instituting an IR. The main
> > driver for this seems to be the REF and the need to potentially track
> > all the
> > output of our researchers. At this stage our PVC(Research) is still
> > somewhat
> > unsure of the nature of the non-technical elements of an IR, i.e. about
> > the
> > language of and necessity for a deposit mandate. I therefore need to
> > make a
> > decisive pitch for a mandate. Ideally it needs to start with the
> > "elevator
> > pitch" and then provide solid foundations for the claims in the elevator
> > pitch, and so I'm hoping the combined brain trust on this list can help
> > me to
> > identify these precise details (facts, figures and published references)
> > which are the most accurate and compelling in putting the mandate case
> > forward. Here is the skeleton of my pitch.
> >
> > -- An IR without a mandate is like serving soup with only a fork: you'll
> > get
> > something, but it's not really worth the trouble.
>
> Cite Arthur Sale's published studies on this, as well as Alma Swan's
> surveys:
>
> http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/authors/Sale,_AHJ.html
> http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/openaccessarchive/index.html
>
> > -- The principle purpose of an IR is to provide access to our research
> > output
> > for those who do not have a subscription to the physical and/or online
> > publisher production.
>
> Cite Ulrich's for the total serial output, and the ARL holdings stats
> for the fraction affordable to any university.
>
> http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/
> http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats
>
> > -- Consequence: basic meta-data plus full text are the primary goal.
> > Sophisticated meta-data is a secondary element and should NEVER be
> > allowed to
> > delay deposit.
>
> Bravo! Spot-on!
>
> > -- Because our research outputs are readable by all, they are more
> > likely to be
> > cited.
>
> Cite the many studies in the Bibliography of Findings on the Open
> Access Impact Advantage:
>
> http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
>
> > -- Consequence: relative and absolute improvements in citation rates
> > for high
> > quality work.
>
> As above.
>
> > -- Finding the output is not the big problem - syntactic search through
> > Google
> > Scholar, OAIster and others provide 95% of findability, but it's only
> > useful
> > to find the article if you can then read the article not just the
> > meta-data.
> >
> > -- Consequence: scalable deposit requires one of the authors to deposit
> > the
> > full text and basic meta-data. More sophisticated meta-data may be added
> > by a
> > librarian or similar, but must not delay the availability of the item.
>
> Bravo! Spot-on!
>
> > -- No academic or university has ever been sued for making their peer
> > reviewed
> > journal output available in an IR.
> >
> > -- Consequence: the default should be open access to the full text. In
> > case
> > of doubt about a publisher's intent, open access should be set. Only
> > where
> > embargoes are clear should they be set. In the case of an embargo, the
> > "Request an e-print" button provides a simple one-click email to the
> > author
> > to request a copy. Doubts about a publisher's rules should never prevent
> > deposit, only access settings.
>
> Bravo! (But allow the possibility of Closed Access as the default
> option for the faint-hearted, rather than putting consensus on mandate
> adoption at risk by making the mandate stronger than necessary.)
>
> > - Consequence: Since author(s) as well as the university benefit and
> > there
> > is no risk, direct availability, and the ability to edit one's deposits
> > should be granted to authors, with no editor to get in the way. Editing
> > can
> > be done afterwards, once the basic meta-data and full text are
> > available.
>
> Bravo! Spot-on!
>
> > It is the text, data and diagrams that are important, not the layout.
> >
> > - Consequence: the author's submitted final draft is what needs
> > depositing,
> > not a "publisher's PDF". PDF and HTML formats are preferred over
> > proprietary
> > formats such as Word. Simple tools to produce PDFs should be made
> > available
> > to staff or even embedded in the repository system.
>
> Bravo! Spot-on!
>
> > Carrots are better than sticks in encouraging deposit.
> >
> > - Consequence: all university procedures which involve publications
> > should
> > draw their information from the repository, particularly promotion and
> > incentive procedures.
>
> Bravo! Spot-on!
>
> I suggest also adding something about the growing potential of
> metrics, not only for REF, but for internal and external auditing
> purposes. The IRs can generate IRstats with increasing rich, diverse
> and revealing metrics (citations, downloads, co-citations, book
> citations, citation/download growth decay metrics, endogamy/exogamy,
> hubs/authorities, and mann many more).
>
> http://trac.eprints.org/projects/irstats
> http://www.citebase.org/
>
> Congratulations on an invaluable set of rationales for OA mandates.
> Please add it to your IR as a FAQ for others!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stevan
>
>
> > Dr Andrew A Adams, School of Systems Engineering
> > The University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AY, UK
> > Tel:44-118-378-6997 E-mail:a.a.adams_at_rdg.ac.uk
> > http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~sis00aaa/
>
> Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
> need to.
>
> This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for
> the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under
> applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system
> and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or
> its attachments.
>
> Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free.
> Roehampton University does not accept responsibility for any loss arising
> from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet
> communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any
> viruses.
>
> Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that
> does not relate to the business of Roehampton University is personal to
> the sender and is not given or endorsed by Roehampton University.
>
> Roehampton University is a company limited by guarantee incorporated in
> England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton
> Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
>
Received on Mon Oct 13 2008 - 11:48:40 BST