On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Armel le Bail wrote:
> ...nothing serious in open access will happen till
> scientists are... educated individually to share/send their
> productions through institutional repositories. An important
> point of that education would be to insist on the legality
> of this behaviour. As long as not all journals [are]
> fully green, researchers will be afraid of doing something
> illegal. As long as employers (government, institutions)
> [do] not give full and clear permission (if not official obligation)
> to deposit everything at well defined places, repositories
> will continue to receive a weak percentage of the essential
> documents. Put the pressure first on public research employers.
(1) 94% of journals are green.
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
(2) For papers in the remaining 6%, their full-text and metadata can be
immediately deposited in the IR anyway, but with access to the full-text
set to Closed Access instead of Open Access. The EPrints semi-automatic
"email eprint" button allows the author to email to individual
eprint-requesters with one keystroke.
https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/notices/publicnotices.php?notice=902
(3) Yes, research institutions and research funders can and should (and
will) mandate the immediate self-archiving of 100% of their published
paper output.
http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
Stevan Harnad
> > Porter, George (2006) Let's Get it Started!
> > Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 47.
> > http://www.istl.org/06-summer/viewpoints.html
> >
> > "...Stevan Harnad is into the second decade of his jeremiad on
> > the subject of self-archiving. A number of platforms have been
> > created to support institutional repositories... If librarians and
> > academicians agree on the desirability of institutional repositories,
> > and software platforms and services are available to make repositories
> > technically feasible, one is left to ponder a few questions. Why are
> > there so few institutional repositories up and running? Why are the
> > existing institutional repositories generally not well filled with
> > the intellectual output of their respective institutions?..."
> >
> >Yes, jeremiads for self-archiving are not enough.
> > http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/
> >Yes, creating IR software is not enough.
> > http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html#HARNAD
> >Yes, creating IRs is not enough.
> > http://archives.eprints.org/
> >Yes, library activism is not enough.
> > http://eprints.utas.edu.au/257/
> >Not even providing the evidence on how self-archiving enhances
> >research impact is enough:
> > http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
> >Only (institutional and funder) self-archiving mandates are (necessary
> >and) sufficient to set self-archiving inexorably on the path to 100% OA
> >(yet that's precisely what George Porter fails even to mention!).
> > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/
> >Jeremiads are not enough to generate self-archiving mandates either:
> > "What Provosts Need to Mandate" (2003)
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3241
> >Only the empirical example of those institutions that already
> >mandate self-archiving, and have thus demonstrated the success of
> >mandated self-archiving, will generate self-archiving mandates -- and
> >self-archiving, and 100% OA.
> > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 19:39:41 BST