Re: How long should items be able to be accessed from a repository?

From: Arthur Sale <ahjs_at_OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:17:09 +1100

There are a couple of issues/arguments in this posting that deserve
teasing out further.

�

Arthur Sale

�

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On

> Behalf Of Danny Kingsley

> Sent: Friday, 10 March 2006 22:37

> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK

> Subject: How long should items be able to be accessed from a
repository? How long is

> long term?

>

> How long is long term?

>

> There is currently some discussion (on this list) about how long items

> should be able to be accessed from a repository. It is an interesting

> question, and opens up larger ones such as what responsibilities do
journals

> have for ensuring the archiving and perpetuality of papers they have

> published in a digital-only format? If libraries are simply licensing
their

> subscriptions (which are for a finite period), and not maintaining a
paper

> copy in their libraries (the LOCKSS principle) then long-term archiving

> issues must be addressed by the publishers.

>

> The logical forward argument from that is that the open access copy of
a

> paper sitting in a repository is only needed until the electronic copy
of

> the publisher's version goes open access (as increasingly they are
after

> some embargo period, often 1-2 years, sometimes as short as six months
after

> the publication date).

�

It is important to note the huge fallacy in this argument. It is
unnecessary to have open access to have archival Preservation. Even
journals that *never* make their journals open access still have
Preservation responsibilities, and they generally meet them. The archival
Preservation need is satisfied by every journal article as soon as it is
published.

�

The emergence of delayed access (making historical articles freely
available only after a period) is to be strongly deprecated. Six months
is still an unconscionable delay in open access. Two years is as good as
infinity in most fields. Again, except for providing a lazy way of
providing long-term access by previous subscribers to old issues/papers.
It has nothing to do with open access.

�

> If that is the case, 'long-term' responsibilities of an institutional

> repository only exist for this short timeframe, and energy expended on

> longer archiving roles would be wasted.

�

It is wasted anyway. Open access repositories containing mainly published
articles have no long-term Preservation roles. This may not be true of
repositories with a larger "Digital Library" agenda.

�

> But this cuts down to the even bigger question of what the
institutional

> repository exists for. Even once the decision is made to separate the
roles

> of a 'digital library' and an 'institutional repository', there is a
further

> required distinction. If we define the institutional repository as
being

> soley for preprints, postprints and supporting datasets, there are two

> choices for the required length of archiving, depending on the purpose
of

> the repository.

>

> The first instance is where the institutional repository is simply in
place

> as a tool to facilitate open access to the publication output of the

> institution. In this situation, the items in the repository are only

> required to be there and accessible until they become freely available
over

> time, as publishers open up access to back copies of publications. This
is

> even more pertinent in disciplines where papers have a short half-life,
such

> as biomedicine. Some papers are obsolete within a very short
time-frame,

> which means their citation rates will stop altogether, obfuscating the
need

> for them to remain in the repository other than as an historical
oddity.

�

This ignores the persistence of URLs, which citers are entitled to expect
for a much longer period. Broken links are the bane of every researcher,
and of citation tools.

�

> The second instance is where the repository is used as a record of
scholarly

> output by the institution for reporting purposes, such as for DEST
funding

> in Australia. This is a likely scenario in the future, as one way of

> ensuring material is deposited in the repository is to tie the process
into

> that of grant applications.

�

This is not a way of "linking process with grant applications", but a way
of satisfying governmental reporting requirements (and formula-driven
institutional funding allocations). As such it will have the effect of a
"mandate" in Australia in the long term: non-compliance will mean lack of
research infrastructure funding to the school/university, so you had
better comply. The same is true in the UK with the RAE, and elsewhere.

�

> Again, the question of the definition of the institutional repository

> becomes essential before decisions can be made and time invested in
trying

> to solve problems that might not really exist.

�

And this is precisely right. If a definition of what a repository is
diffuse and poorly thought out, expect (a) lots of wasted time arguing
over non-essentials and (b) a blow-out in costs of 2x to 5x at least.

�

Arthur Sale

�

>

> Danny Kingsley

�
Received on Sat Mar 11 2006 - 04:01:07 GMT