Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote: > Stevan, > > [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was inspired by > your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we don't > just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University archive. > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ] > > I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to establish ↵ > such an archive. I thought it was a great idea to get a collection of > content immediately. Do you know of other Universities that are doing > this and if not, why not? Thanks for your message. (1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of which 55% already officially support author/institution self-archiving. (Many more journals will agree if asked.) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm (2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective legacy literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication date. (3) Although making a university's past research output openly accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly to be encouraged!). (4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of *current* research output that universities can already self-archive immediately, without the need to make any further request of the publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 (5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy research output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. Publishers will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship. http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html (6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of research output. The library can help http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html their policy backed up by the research funding agencies http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope universities that have been implementing this will reply and share their experience. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 ↵ & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html or http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .