Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Sebastien Paquet wrote: > the value to a particular researcher [of] putting papers in open access > strongly depends on the number of people who are also doing it (or at > least using open archives) in his discipline and only weakly on the number > of people who are doing it in other disciplines. I think the answer to your own point is contained within your parentheses: Even if I am the *only* author who self-archives, I get the full impact-enhancing value of it as long as the relevant researchers are *using* my self-archived version. Well, evidence suggests they are! See: http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/ (And DP9, for example, also ensures that all google-users can access all OAI papers, if the OAI search engines are not enough to point them there! http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html ). > Since scholars are much better socially interconnected within disciplines, > peer pressure is likely to drive authors towards open access on a > disciplinary basis. It would be so much easier to convince a researcher > to jump in if he were persuaded that everyone else in his discipline is > also going to do it! I don't disagree. But the question was merely whether there was any special need for central, discipline-based OAI Archives, rather than distributed, institution-based ones, to promote self-archiving and open-access (given that they are all interopeable anyway). I think the answer is no. Both kinds of archives are useful and speed us toward open access (but I still think there are good reasons to believe institutional self-archiving is the more universal and natural route, as well as the speediest one!). Stevan Harnad
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .