|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]boaiforum messages[BOAI] Re: Questions concerning CogprintsFrom: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> --Apple-Mail-16--301342 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ** apologies for cross-posting ** On 5-Nov-09, at 4:00 AM, [Identity deleted] wrote: > We [deleted] are informing researchers from the social sciences and =20= > humanities in [deleted] about repositories in their domain. I am happy to answer your questions about central disicplinary =20 repositories in general and, in particular, about CogPrints = http://cogprints.org/=20 , which I founded in 1997 as a conscious effort to extend to other =20 disciplines the long-standing practice of physicists to self-archive =20 their papers -- both before and after refereeing -- in what used to be =20= called "XXX" and then became the Los Alamos (now Cornell) Physics =20 Arxiv. http://arxiv.org/ The idea of CogPrints was to show that making one's papers freely =20 accessible online was not just feasible and useful in physics, but in =20= all disciplines. The idea was also (vaguely) that it could all be =20 deposited in one global archive -- Arxiv, perhaps, eventually, but =20 that first CogPrints needed to demonstrate the feasibility and =20 usefulness of self-archiving in other disciplines, as evidence that =20 the practice could be generalized and could scale. But there was always some uncertainty about whether the self-archiving =20= should be central or local (institutional). The original self-=20 archiving proposal (1994) had been for local self-archiving: = http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/=20 . Somehow, however -- perhaps because of the prominent success of =20 Arxiv, which had launched in 1991, but preceded by similar practices =20 by high energy physicists in the sharing and distribution of preprints =20= in hard copy form, at central deposit sites such as CERN and SLAC -- =20 the local self-archiving proposal mutated, temporarily, into central =20 self-archiving, and that was when CogPrints was created. Since then, however, the OAI metadata harvesting protocol = http://www.openarchives.org/=20 (itself first inspired by Arxiv) was created (1999), making all OAI-=20= compliant repositories interoperable, and the Budapest Open Access =20 Initiative (2001) http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ was launched, =20 CogPrints was made OAI-compliant, and then used to create the first =20 generic OAI-compliant, Open Access (OA) Institutional Repository (IR) =20= software (EPrints) http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/, and the =20 international OA IR movement began, and is now culminating in =20 institutional mandates to self-archive in institutions' own IRs. = http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ So the tide has turned, functionally, to institutional rather than =20 central self-archiving, with the OAI protocol making it possible to =20 harvest the metadata data (or both the metadata and the full-texts) =20 from all the distributed IRs into many discipline-based or geographic =20= central repositories. http://bit.ly/2kheoh This development was natural, and indeed optimal, because institutions =20= (not disciplines) are the universal providers of all of OA's target =20 content (refereed research), across all disciplines and nations, hence =20= distributed local deposit and central harvesting is the most natural =20 and universal way to ensure (and mandate) that all of OA's target =20 content is systematically provided. That had been the gist of the =20 original 1994 self-archiving proposal. The notion of central deposit was made obsolete by the OAI harvesting =20= protocol. (The idea is the same as with Google: we don't deposit =20 centrally in Google; we deposit content locally, and Google harvests. =20= With research, there are disciplines and countries and funders, and if =20= any or many of them want their own entral collection, they need merely =20= harvest it. No need to have researchers depositing willy-nilly here =20 and there. Depositing once, in their own institution's IR is enough, =20 and the rest is just a matter of automated import/export and/or =20 harvesting. Moreover, IRs cost far less to create and maintain than =20 central repositories, because they distribute the cost and the load.) So CogPrints, and other direct-deposit central repositories are =20 obsolescent, with good reason. It is institutional self-archiving =20 mandates that will put an end to the direct-deposit central repository =20= era -- but harvested central collections may still continue to =20 flourish, until generic global harvesters manage to provide the same =20 functionality or better, across disciplines and nations -- and =20 institutions have a special interest in hosting and managing their own =20= output.) > We have 2 questions considering cogprints: > > =95 Are peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed documents available = on =20 > cogprints? Yes, both unrefereed preprints and refereed postprints can be =20 deposited in CogPrints -- and in IRs. But only refereed postprint =20 deposit can be mandated by institutions (and funders). Whether =20 researchers choose to make their unrefereed drafts public (as the =20 physicists have found useful to do) must be left up to the individual =20= researchers. > If yes, do you control if documents from authors who say they are =20 > peer-reviewed are really peer-reviewed? Is there such a control at =20 > Cogprints? CogPrints certainly does not fact-check whether papers deposited as =20 having been published in a (named) refereed journal were indeed =20 published in that refereed journal. Institutions may choose to fact-check that for deposits in their own =20 IRs (but I doubt it's necessary: publicly claiming to have published =20 in a journal when anyone on the web can check and confirm that it is =20 untrue would be a very foolish thing for an academic to do -- and the =20= deception would not last long). > =95 Is it free for authors to upload their documents on = Cogprints or =20 > do they have to pay something? Of course it is free -- both to the uploading author and to the =20 downloading user. But it is not cost-free to maintain a central repository. (And =20 maintaining Arxiv costs a lot of money; it doesn't cost much to =20 maintain CogPrints simply because CogPrints -- and central self-=20 archiving in general, apart from Arxiv, is either a failure or just a =20= very minor and temporary success. The natural and optimal way to self-=20= archive is institutionally, with central repositories being just =20 harvested collections, not multiple off-site loci of remote deposit, =20 competing for or overloading the poor depositing author's keystrokes, =20= and discouraging institutional self-archiving mandates.) = http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html I hope this helps. It's a good idea to consider setting up central =20 collections, but better to encourage local institutional deposit, and =20= to harvest therefrom, rather than trying to get authors -- who mostly =20= (85%) don't self-archive at all -- to deposit directly in yet another =20= central repository. Stevan Harnad --Apple-Mail-16--301342 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: ↵ space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "> ** ↵ apologies for = cross-posting **<div><br><div><div>On 5-Nov-09, at 4:00 ↵ AM, [Identity = deleted] wrote:</div><br><blockquote ↵ type=3D"cite"><div>We [deleted] are = informing researchers from the social sciences and humanities in = [deleted] about repositories in their = domain.</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I am happy to answer = your questions about central disicplinary repositories in general and, = in particular, about CogPrints <a = href=3D"http://cogprints.org/">http://cogprints.org/</a>, ↵ which I = founded in 1997 as a conscious effort to extend to other disciplines the = long-standing practice of physicists to self-archive their papers -- = both before and after refereeing -- in what used to be called "XXX" ↵ and = then became the Los Alamos (now Cornell) Physics = Arxiv. http://arxiv.org/</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>= </div><div>The idea of CogPrints was to show that making one's ↵ papers = freely accessible online was not just feasible and useful in physics, = but in all disciplines. The idea was also (vaguely) that it could all be = deposited in one global archive -- Arxiv, perhaps, eventually, but that = first CogPrints needed to demonstrate the feasibility and usefulness of = self-archiving in other disciplines, as evidence that the practice could = be generalized and could ↵ scale.</div><div><br></div><div>But there was = always some uncertainty about whether the self-archiving should be = central or local (institutional). The original self-archiving proposal = (1994) had been for local self-archiving: <a = href=3D"http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/">http://www.arl.org/sc/subversiv= e/</a>. Somehow, however -- perhaps because of the ↵ prominent = success of Arxiv, which had launched in 1991, but preceded by similar = practices by high energy physicists in the sharing and distribution of = preprints in hard copy form, at central deposit sites such as CERN and = SLAC -- the local self-archiving proposal mutated, = <i>t</i><i>emporarily</i>, into ↵ <i>central</i> self-archiving, and that = was when CogPrints was ↵ created.</div><div><br></div><div>Since then, = however, the OAI metadata harvesting protocol <a = href=3D"http://www.openarchives.org/">http://www.openarchives.org/</a> = (itself first inspired by Arxiv) was created (1999), making all = OAI-compliant repositories interoperable, and the Budapest Open Access = Initiative (2001) <a = href=3D"http://www.soros.org/openaccess/">http://www.soros.org/openaccess/= </a> was launched, CogPrints was made OAI-compliant, and then used to = create the first generic OAI-compliant, Open Access (OA) Institutional = Repository (IR) software (EPrints) <a = href=3D"http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/">http://www.eprints.org/openacc= ess/</a>, and the international OA IR movement began, and is now = culminating in institutional mandates to self-archive in institutions' = own IRs. <a = href=3D"http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/">http://www.eprint= s.org/openaccess/policysignup/</a></div><div><br></div><div>So the tide = has turned, functionally, to institutional rather than central = self-archiving, with the OAI protocol making it possible to <i>harvest = </i>the metadata data (or both the metadata and the full-texts) from all ↵ = the distributed IRs into many discipline-based or geographic central = repositories. <a = href=3D"http://bit.ly/2kheoh">http://bit.ly/2kheoh</a></div><div><br></div= ><div>This development was natural, and indeed optimal, because = institutions (not disciplines) are the universal providers of all of = OA's target content (refereed research), across all disciplines and = nations, hence distributed local deposit and central harvesting is the = most natural and universal way to ensure (and mandate) that all of OA's = target content is systematically provided. That had been the gist of the = original 1994 self-archiving ↵ proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>The = notion of central deposit was made obsolete by the OAI harvesting = protocol. (The idea is the same as with Google: we don't deposit = centrally in Google; we deposit content locally, and Google harvests. = With research, there are disciplines and countries and funders, and if = any or many of them want their own entral collection, they need merely = harvest it. No need to have researchers depositing willy-nilly here and = there. Depositing once, in their own institution's IR is enough, and the = rest is just a matter of automated import/export and/or harvesting. = Moreover, IRs cost far less to create and maintain than central = repositories, because they distribute the cost and the = load.)</div><div><br></div><div><i>So ↵ CogPrints, and other = direct-deposit central repositories are obsolescent</i>, with good = reason. It is institutional self-archiving mandates that will put an end = to the direct-deposit central repository era -- but harvested central = collections may still continue to flourish, until generic global = harvesters manage to provide the same functionality or better, across = disciplines and nations -- and institutions have a special interest in = hosting and managing their own = output.) </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote = type=3D"cite"><div>We have 2 questions considering = cogprints:<br><br><div><span ↵ class=3D"Apple-tab-span" = style=3D"white-space:pre"> </span>=95 Are peer-reviewed and ↵ non = peer-reviewed documents available on cogprints? = </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, both unrefereed preprints = and refereed postprints can be deposited in CogPrints -- and in IRs. But = only refereed postprint deposit can be <i>mandated</i> by ↵ institutions = (and funders). Whether researchers choose to make their unrefereed = drafts public (as the physicists have found useful to do) must be left = up to the individual ↵ researchers.</div><div><br><blockquote = type=3D"cite"><div><div>If yes, do you control if ↵ documents from authors = who say they are peer-reviewed are really peer-reviewed? Is there such a = control at Cogprints? ↵ </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>CogPrints = certainly does not fact-check whether papers deposited as having been = published in a (named) refereed journal were indeed published in that = refereed ↵ journal. </div><div><br></div><div>Institutions may choose = to fact-check that for deposits in their own IRs (but I doubt it's = necessary: publicly claiming to have published in a journal when anyone = on the web can check and confirm that it is untrue would be a very = foolish thing for an academic to do -- and the deception would not last = long).</div><div><br><blockquote ↵ type=3D"cite"><div><div><span = class=3D"Apple-tab-span" ↵ style=3D"white-space:pre"> </span>=95 Is it = free for authors to upload their documents on Cogprints or do they have = to pay ↵ something?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Of course = it is free -- both to the uploading author and to the downloading = user. </div><div><br></div><div>But it ↵ is not cost-free to maintain = a central repository. (And maintaining Arxiv costs a lot of money; it = doesn't cost much to maintain CogPrints simply because CogPrints -- and = central self-archiving in general, apart from Arxiv, is either a failure = or just a very minor and temporary success. The natural and optimal way = to self-archive is institutionally, with central repositories being just = harvested collections, not multiple off-site loci of remote deposit, = competing for or overloading the poor depositing author's keystrokes, = and discouraging institutional self-archiving mandates.) <a = href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html">h= ttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html</a></div><d= iv><br></div><div>I hope this helps. It's a good idea to ↵ consider = setting up central collections, but better to encourage local = institutional deposit, and to harvest therefrom, rather than trying to = get authors -- who mostly (85%) don't self-archive at all -- to = deposit directly in yet another central = repository.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan = Harnad</div><br></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-16--301342-- -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
|
E-mail: