Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:51:22 -0500

      Klaus Graf: 

      It is wrong to think mandates are the only way to fill
      the
      repositories... "Cream of Science" project in the NL had
      a very
      high OA rate. 


Despite the enormous value and importance of Netherlands "Cream of
Science" and the DARE project, its award-winning architect, Leo
Waaijers has a rather different view ...

      Tomasz Neugebauer:

      If it is true that the majority of faculty want to
      support open access with a mandate, then there shouldn't
      be any problems in getting universities to adopt the
      mandates. Yet, the problem persists.  There has been much
      contemplation about the insufficient submission rates for
      self-archiving, what about the causes of insufficient
      adoption of mandates?... What do you think is the cause? 


Very valid question! I wish I knew the answer! I can only say as much
as I know:

(1) It would have been possible (though not quite as efficient) for
researchers to provide 100% OA since at least 1994 .

(2) The next decade showed that neither exhortations, nor CRs, nor
OAI-PMH , nor IR software, nor IRs, nor the green light from most
publishers, nor evidence of the OA impact advantage, nor incentives,
nor assistance were sufficient to get the deposit rate much above the
spontaneous baseline of 15%.

(3) I gave the syndrome a name: "Zeno's Paralysis ."

(4) The cure for Zeno's Paralysis is known too: It is Green OA
self-archiving mandates, from funders and institutions.

(5) The trick is to get funders and institutions to administer the
cure.

(6) It's coming (but too slowly, I agree!)

Stevan
Received on Wed Feb 11 2009 - 20:52:20 GMT