Re: [SOAF] Please Don't Conflate Direct with Harvested CRs (Central Repositories), Or Deposit Locus With Search Locus
[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Consider the logic of Stevan's argument.
I gave an example of one central, multi-disciplinary repository, HAL,
because this category of central depositories had not been overlooked
in the discussion. Then, in a different point, I turned to the
question of central depositories in general and brought out the fact
that several of them had political foundations. Because of this
political link, I suggested that such repositories might be in a
better position - I repeat "might" - to obtain a national mandate.
When I suggested this possibility, I was thinking about NIH of
course. I did also write: "Moreover, it has been my impression that
the notion of NIH wanting to dispose of its own depository (which
allows for some degree of control over file formats, for example, and
this is important for the development of data mining processes) had
not impeded, quite the contrary, the political process leading to the
law where this mandate is contained".
In his response, Stevan claims the contrary. And to demonstrate his
thesis, he uses the case of HAL! HAL, he claims, is ten years old
(which it is not, incidentally - more like three or four years old.
The official signature with the Academy of Science dates back to
2006, but it had been in the works for a couple of years). Hal did
not get a mandate; therefore, Guédon is wrong... What about NIH?
I would also like to know how the "mandated locus of deposit has
indeed (partially) impeded (and is continuing to (partially) impede)
progress in implementing and sustaining the NIH mandate". In
particular, are the present and renewed threats against the NIH
mandate aimed at the mandate itself, or are they aimed at the place
of deposit. In particular, does Stevan know of precise arguments that
use the place of deposit as a lever against the mandate? If so, could
Stevan be so kind as to provide some precise citations (and
quotations) to convince us. I am quite willing to be convinced, but
only if the proof is brought on the table.
Also, I was talking specifically about places of deposit, not
depositories in general.
Also, I did not fail "to take into account a single one the many very
specific practical and functional points that have been adduced on
behalf of funders stipulating IRs instead of CRs as their designated
locus of deposit,...". I simply took them for granted. But, as is
often the case in my debates with Stevan, I simply wanted to point
out that there is bit more to the situation that what he chooses to
point to. This is one more case where I essentially agree with all he
says, but feel the need to point out the incompleteness or the overly
restrictive nature of what he says. However, it appears that, for
Stevan, anything extending beyond the strict boundaries of his mental
horizon is deemed to be "vague".
Finally, I suspect that if I had qualified Stevan's text with
something equivalent to "vague and cheery", and had alluded to
Chairman Mao through the 100 flowers blooming, etc., I would have
been called "strident" or something like that. And on the Am-sci
list, the debate would have been summarily and arbitrarily cut off by
the moderator of the list who happens to be ... Stevan in person.
I will conclude by quoting Mr. Spock (of Star Trek fame): Captain,
this is illogical.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mardi 10 février 2009 à 08:36 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
if a central depository is correlated with a
political entity, particularly a national
government, then it may be in a position to
secure a national mandate in one single move.
Indeed. And France's HAL has been correlated with a
political entity: the French government. But in nearly a
decade there has not been one single move toward adopting
a nation-wide OA mandate for HAL in France.
(In the meantime, the UK, with no national repository,
has adopted an OA mandate for all 7 of its national
research funding councils , and 7 of its universities
have already adopted institutional or departmental OA
mandates too. In France one national funding council one
national institute, and one laboratory have so far
adopted OA mandates.)
NIH wanting to [manage] its own
[r]epository... ha[s] not impeded, quite the
contrary, the political process leading to
the law where this mandate is contained.
The issue -- to repeat -- is not institutional
repositories (IRs) vs. central repositories (CRs) but IRs
vs. CRs as the mandated locus of direct deposit. (The
rest is indeed just a matter of harvesting.)
And the NIH's stipulation of a CR (PubMed Central) as the
mandated locus of deposit has indeed (partially) impeded
(and is continuing to (partially) impede) progress in
implementing and sustaining the NIH mandate.
Instead designating the fundee's IR as the default locus
of direct deposit (and then harvesting to PubMed Central
from there) would greatly facilitate the progress not
only of the NIH mandate, but of institutional mandates
("the slumbering giant") as well as other funder mandates
worldwide, for the specific reasons that have been
repeatedly adduced in this discussion.
I am convinced that we will have to live with
a mixed array of multi-disciplinary
depositories, single (or made up of related
disciplines) central depositories and
multi-disciplinary depositories.
To repeat. This is not the issue. Of course there can and
will and should be both IRs and CRs. The issue is locus
of mandated deposit.
the best way to move forward is simply ensure
the creation of meta-data that ease[s] the
institutional harvesting of articles by
institutions
(1) Most Institutions do not have OA mandates, hence they
are not harvesting institutional deposit that have been
deposited institution-externally.
(2) Most funders do not have OA mandates either (and not
all research is funded), hence much research would not be
harvestable to IRs even if all funders mandated deposit
in CRs.
(3) Depositing institution-externally in CRs and then
back-harvesting to the institution's website makes about
as much sense as depositing in google and than
back-harvesting to one's own website (except that it is
even worse, with a variety of different googles in which
one's own content might be externally located). Only
forward-harvesting -- from the distributed local
providers to external collections and global services,
rather than the reverse -- makes any practical or logical
sense.
(4) More important even than making practical and logical
sense is the likelihood that funders mandating IR deposit
instead of CR deposit will facilitate and motivate the
adoption of complementary mandates by the fundees'
institutions, to capture the rest of their institutional
research output. (Waking the "slumbering giant": the
universal providers, the worlwide network of universities
and research institutions.) This potential gain would be
at no loss in either content of functionality to the
funder.
All of this vague and cheery talk about letting 1000
flowers bloom simply fails to take into account a single
one the many very specific practical and functional
points that have been adduced on behalf of funders
stipulating IRs instead of CRs as their designated locus
of deposit, and harvesting to CRs from there.
Stevan Harnad
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Wed Feb 11 2009 - 15:11:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:41 GMT