Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:08:22 -0500


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message

Quoting Christopher Gutteridge <cjg AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>:

> What I'm asking is; has anyone given consideration to ways
> of smoothing over this duplication of effort? Possibly some
> negotiated automated process for insitutional archives
> uploading to the subject archive, or at least
> assisting the author in the process.

If peer-to-peer 'open' music sharing software like Napster and the 
like managed to get set up so quickly and be so successful, I wonder 
what the problem is within the academic circles.

Is it the inertia of 'researching the best standard'? Why don't we 
simply adopt one of the successful models already at work in 
the 'fringe industry'?

Why do we have to develop yet another standard?
- Is it for the sake of credit? Think about it. Are citations a good 
measure of credit? When you cite an article that simply describes 
someone else's work, who gets the credit? How far can one follow back 
the syntopical chain of citations? Just because a paper is cited a 
lot does it mean it's influential or plain wrong and lots of people 
jumped in the water to retrieve the stick?
- Because of reliability? That would be solved by someone investing 
in some servers that will be always up and which will selectively 
duplicate the works which get good 'marks' from their users.

Make the system 'credit-based', allow the researchers to just place 
the work they want to make public on dedicated machines within their 
Universities and other research venues.

 And please:
- stop creating all-new standards. Before you start standardization, 
look around and see if the same functionality is not already 
available.
- stop fragmenting the digital world into exclusivist 'servers' 
and 'services'. Are we striving for open or closed access?
- stop looking for the 'final ontology' for classifying stuff. The 
world is not perfect. People are not perfect. And good 
indexing/search facilities are more efficient than any ontology.

I could dig up references for most of my assertions, but I bet most 
of you are already aware of them.

We just need access to each-other's work, so that our ideas grow in 
the fertile land of other minds.

Cheers,
Radu
(www.monicsoft.net)





[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:45:49 +0200


Threading: Re: [OAI-eprints] Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

  Stevan Harnad writes

> Thomas gived exactly the correct answer to Chris!

  I didn't know this was a quiz :-) 

> What is needed is institutional self-archiving, distributed across its
> departments interoperably, but customized to the different needs of the
> different disciplines.

  That is a tall order. 

> (1) Institutions can mandate self-archiving, disciplines cannot.

  Cliff imagines that they can, but in practice, it will be tough.
  You can not put a KGB officer in every academic's office!

> (2) Most disciplines do not have disciplinary OAI Archives at all.

  Sure, but all have some ways to communicate informally, and many
  have innovative channels. Sure, many of them stay small, but
  there is not technical obstacle to a meaningful aggergation. 

> (4) There are many other potential uses for institutional research
> archives (apart from open access).

  I agree. If I would run an institution's archive I would back
  up all the web sites each year. In 20 years time, you would get
  a fascinating picture of the development of the institution. 

> (5) OAI-interoperability guarantees that institutional and disciplinary
> self-archiving are equivalent from the open-access point of view, but
> aggregating institutional packages out of distributed disciplinary
> OAI archives is harder (though it is not clear how much harder) than
> aggregating disciplinary packages out of distributed institutional
> OAI archives.

  no, it is easier to construct feature-rich datasets out of 
  disciplinary archives, because some of them will be prepared
  with the specifics of an aggregator in mind.

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


  Thomas Krichel                         http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                     RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel


Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:10:36 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from radu AT monicsoft.net
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from cjg AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

  Sebastien Paquet writes

> telephone is useless; the usefulness of having a telephone increases with
> the overall number of telephones. A similar argument can be made for
> putting papers in open access, but the value to a particular researcher
> 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. This is why it makes
> sense to say, as he writes:
> 
>  "As long as others in the discipline are not doing it, there
>   is little interest in the individual scholar doing it."
> 
> 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!

  Merci Sébastien, this is a good way to put it. but there is a bit
  more to it. The incentives mill come from the evaluative data that
  is computed on the discipline-based aggregative dataset, plus 
  some other optional data.



  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


  Thomas Krichel                         http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                     RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel


[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:34 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: Re: [OAI-eprints] Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:

>cg> What I'm asking is; has anyone given consideration to ways of 
smoothing
>cg> over this duplication of effort? Possibly some negotiated automated 
process
>cg> for insitutional archives uploading to the subject archive, or at 
least
>cg> assisting the author in the process.
> 
>   This is not a pressing concern as much as it appears, because
>   discipline-based archives have, arXiv apart, not that much stuff.

Thomas gived exactly the correct answer to Chris!

>   It is better,
>   within an institution, to proceed department by department and
>   listen to what the academics want (and these wants will be 
>   different in each department), rather than setting up one 
>   archive that is supposed to satisfy everybody's needs at the
>   risk of satisfying nobody's.

Of course. Institutional self-archiving does not imply one single
university archive, but an OAI-interoperable network, parametrized to
suit any special needs of each discipline. (That's certainly how Chris's
eprints.org software is being designed: http://software.eprints.org/ )

>   it is best to listen to academics telling you 
>   what their needs are, rather than setting up procedures around
>   a central institutional archive, The latter is what Clifford Lynch 
wants.
>   I don't think that it will work.

What is needed is institutional self-archiving, distributed across its
departments interoperably, but customized to the different needs of the
different disciplines.

>cg> Ultimately, of course, I'd hope that disciplinary archives will be 
>cg> replaced [by] subject-specific OAI service providers harvesting 
>cg> from the institutional archives.
> 
>   I would put this in different way, I'd say that there should be more
>   interoperability between institutional archives and disciplinary
>   aggregators. Such aggregators don't have a prime function of 
>   archiving contents but to put the archival contents into 
>   relations with personal and institutional data and
>   document-to-document metadata such as citations. Rather
>   than marking up the documents content in the institutional
>   archive with subject classification data, it should be marked
>   up with aggregator data... n the longer run, we need an extension 
>   to the OAI protocol to support this on a larger scale. 

No problem. This is certainly something the OAI developers can address.
But it has nothing to do with what Chris was worrying about (dupicate
self-archiving in disciplinary and institutional archives); and it seems
to agree about the primacy of institution-based archiving (but
distributed across, and adapted to, the institution's departments and
disciplines).

>   Faculty should be given the choice [between disciplinary and 
>   institutional self-archiving]. They should not be required
>   to do either one. arXiv have been doing a tremendous job at
>   archiving. You are not going to replace them. But arXiv really
>   only covers a small set of disciplines well. 

This seems to contradict what was said before! It would be impossible
to implement an effective, systematic institutional self-archiving
policy if it were optional whether researchers self-archive in their
institutional archive or in a central disciplinary archive (even though
OAI-interoperability makes the two alternatives completely equivalent
from an open-access point of view). Let me count the ways:

(1) Institutions can mandate self-archiving, disciplines cannot.

(2) Most disciplines do not have disciplinary OAI Archives at all.

(3) All institutions have (just about) all disciplines.

(4) There are many other potential uses for institutional research
archives (apart from open access).

(5) OAI-interoperability guarantees that institutional and disciplinary
self-archiving are equivalent from the open-access point of view, but
aggregating institutional packages out of distributed disciplinary
OAI archives is harder (though it is not clear how much harder) than
aggregating disciplinary packages out of distributed institutional
OAI archives.

(6) But it is not the equivalence or ease of aggregation that is relevant
at this point (with most archives non-existent or near-empty) but what
is the most promising and natural way to reach universal open access.
(Return to (1) above.)

Stevan Harnad



[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:05:02 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from radu AT monicsoft.net
             [BOAI] BOAI Forum and FAQ [was: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives] from peters AT earlham.edu
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:

> we are planning a University-wide eprints archive. I am 
> concerned that some physicists will want to place their items in both
> the university eprints service AND the arXiv physics archive. They may 
> be required to use the university service, but want to use arXiv as it
> is the primary source for their discipline. This is a duplication of 
> effort and a potential irritation.

This is a very minor technical problem (the interoperability of multiple
OAI Archives containing the same paper) and part of another, slightly
less minor problem, namely, version-control, within and across OAI
Archives (the coordination of multiple versions and revisions of the
same paper, within the same or different OAI archives), plus the
optimization of cross-archive OAI search services:
http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html

I recommend that this be discussed with the pertinent experts in oai-tech
or oai-general. It is not a general archiving or open-access matter, and
can only confuse researchers (needlessly). For them, self-archiving is
the optimal thing to do, institutionally in the first instance, but also
in a central disciplinary archive if/when they wish; and they should
not worry any further about it. (What is needed, urgently, today, is
universal self-archiving, and not trivial worries about whether to do it
here or there or both: OAI-interoperability makes this into a non-issue
from the self-archiver's point of view, and merely a technical feature
to sort out, from the OAI-developers' point of view.)

> Ultimately, of course, I'd hope that disciplinary archives will be 
replaced
> with subject-specific OAI service providers harvesting from the 
institutional
> archives. But there is going to be a very long transition period in which
> the solution evolves from our experience.

A very long transition period from what to what? Right now, most OAI
Archives, whether institutional or disciplinary, are either (1)
non-existent, or (2) near-empty! The transition we are striving for is
from empty to full archives (and let us hope it will not be too long!),
not from disciplinary to institutional archives!

What Chris has in mind is only one, exceptional, special case,
namely, the Physics ArXiv, a disciplinary archive (but the *only*
one) which is, since 1991, well on the road to getting filled in
certain subareas of physics (200,000+ papers) (although even this
archive is still a decade from completeness at its present linear
growth rate: http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions see slide 10 of
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm )

Chris is imagining that if/when the institutions of those physicists
who are already self-archiving in ArXiv adopt an institutional
self-archiving policy like the one in Chris's own department --
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html -- then some of those
physicists may wonder why/whether they should self-archive twice!
(A tempest in a teapot! The real challenge is getting all the *other*
disciplines to self-archive in the first place. Don't worry about those
physicists who are already ahead of the game. They are not the
problem!)

> What I'm asking is; has anyone given consideration to ways of smoothing
> over this duplication of effort? Possibly some negotiated automated 
process
> for insitutional archives uploading to the subject archive, or at least
> assisting the author in the process.

No need! First, because the "duplification of effort" is so minimal 
(the
centrally self-archiving physicists being such an infinitesimal subset
of all that needs to be self-archived -- namely, 2,000,000 articles per
year, across disciplines, not just 200,000 across 10 years, in one
discipline!). And second, because the technical problem (of duplicate
self-archiving) is so soluble, in so many obvious ways!

> This isn't the biggest issue, but it'd be good to address it before it
> becomes more of a problem.

It is such a small issue that it does not belong in a general discussion
of open access and self-archiving for researchers. It belongs only in a
technical discussion group for developers and implementers of the OAI
protocol. The only issue for the research community is how to get the
OAI Archives created and filled, as soon as possible; and I think it
is becoming apparent that institution-based self-archiving is the most
general and natural route to this goal, for the many reasons already
discussed in this thread.

Stevan Harnad




Re: [OAI-eprints] Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:56:08 +0200


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org

  Christopher Gutteridge writes
 
> For example; we are planning a University-wide eprints archive. I am 
> concerned that some physisists will want to place their items in both
> the university eprints service AND the arXiv physics archive. They may 
> be required to use the university service, but want to use arXiv as it
> is the primary source for their discipline. This is a duplication of 
> effort and a potential irritation.

  Faculty should be given the choice. They should not be required
  to do either one. arXiv have been doing a tremendous job at
  archiving. You are not going to replace them. But arXiv really
  only covers a small set of disciplines well. 

> Ultimately, of course, I'd hope that diciplinary archives will be replaced
> with subject-specific OAI service providers harvesting from the 
institutional
> archives.

  I would put this in different way, I'd say that there should be more
  interoperability between institutional archives and disciplinary
  aggregators. Such aggregators don't have a prime function of 
  archiving contents but to put the archival contents into 
  relations with personal and institutional data and
  document-to-document metadata such as citations. Rather
  than marking up the documents content in the institutional
  archive with subject classification data, it should be marked
  up with aggregator data. That is, for example, you may decide
  to export all the computer science papers to rclis. Thus
  you create an rclis set within and inform rclis of this. Then
  they can periodically harvest the data and feed it. In the 
  longer run, we need an extension to the OAI protocol to support
  this on a larger scale. In the meantime, it is perfectly feasible
  to do this here and now with the model aggregator service that
  it out there, the RePEc project. In fact, RePEc does this already
  with the California Digital library, thanks to efforts by
  Roy Tennant and Christopher F. Baum. So, to all those institutional
  archivers out there, if you have an economics department that does
  not already operate a RePEc archive, talk to them, talk to RePEc,
  and set up a OAI set with the Economics papers. It is better,
  within an institution, to proceed department by department and
  listen to what the academics want (and these wants will be 
  different in each department), rather than setting up one 
  archive that is supposed to satisfy everybody's needs at the
  risk of satisfying nobody's.

> What I'm asking is; has anyone given consideration to ways of smoothing
> over this duplication of effort? Possibly some negotiated automated 
process
> for insitutional archives uploading to the subject archive, or at least
> assisting the author in the process.

  It not a pressing concern as much as this appears, because
  discipline-based archives have, arXiv apart, not that much stuff.
  Discipline aggregators, RePEc apart, are still in their infancy.
  I am involved with others in setting up rclis, an aggregator
  for computing and library and information science. One thing
  should be clear: aggregator need years to develop and lots
  of TLC to sustain themselves. 
  
  But I repeat: it is best to listen to academics to tell you 
  what their needs are, rather than setting up procedures around
  a central institutional archive, The latter is what Clifford Lynch wants.
  I don't think that it will work.

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


  Thomas Krichel                         http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                     RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel


Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:24:52 -0500


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Quoting Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>:

> (I couldn't quite see the point about why individuals couldn't
> do it, and a whole discipline needs to be convinced. Surely
> individuals come first, but never mind.) 

Not never mind, because this is a very important point. Disciplines 
are made out of individuals who share (or assume they share), a 
specific body of knowledge.

Yes, individuals should do it, but individuals have enough of a hard 
time doing the research and writing the paper. If you give them yet 
another set of tasks to put their papers online, just for the sake of 
others, with no recognition... they simply won't do it.

Personally I'm against the waste of paper that paper-publishing 
creates. Still, I rarely get the time to put the stuff I place online 
in paper format and vice-versa.

Right now I'm working with Marie-Odile Junker at Carleton University, 
Ottawa, Canada on online documenting the Cree language (an aboriginal 
American couple of dialects). And she's upset that though this effort 
took much more resources than writing a dozen of scholarly journal 
papers, the University does not give her any publication-related 
bonus. THAT is the reason the 'disciplines' have to be made aware of 
the power of open distribution.

While I was doing my Master's thesis on the process of psychological 
research itself, I noticed that people are so burnt out after the 
minutiae of research and publishing that they forget or neglect the 
further steps of archiving, to a point that years later they can't 
find copies of the research materials. They tend to delegate this end 
bit to lab staff who is simply not trained in archival theory and 
practice.

So since then, whenever I get a bit of time out of my work and 
studies, I try to put together a system that would allow researchers 
to do the research steps in an organized way, that would allow them 
to really forget about archiving (other than backing up the archive 
files now and then.)

If you ask researchers to make their work available, you should not 
ask them to put more resources into it (not everyone is THAT 
altruistic), but show them how they can make their work easier.

Interestingly enough, most of my research and development has been 
directly or indirectly funded by the Open Society Foundation :)

Cheers,
Radu
(www.monicsoft.net)



[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:53:22 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from paquetse AT iro.umontreal.ca
      • This Message

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


Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Sebastien Paquet <paquetse AT iro.umontreal.ca>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:36:15 -0500 (EST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> (I couldn't quite see the point about why individuals couldn't do it,
> and a whole discipline needs to be convinced. Surely individuals
> come first, but never mind.) 

I believe Thomas Krichel is referring to a network effect. A single
telephone is useless; the usefulness of having a telephone increases with
the overall number of telephones. A similar argument can be made for
putting papers in open access, but the value to a particular researcher
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. This is why it makes
sense to say, as he writes:

 "As long as others in the discipline are not doing it, there
  is little interest in the individual scholar doing it."

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!

Sébastien Paquet
Université de Montréal
-- 
Seb's Open Research -
news, pointers and thoughts on the evolution of knowledge sharing
http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772


Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:01:29 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from lqthede AT apk.net
      • This Message

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Linda Thede wrote:

> how will all these individual institutional papers be indexed
> so interested persons can find them?

Let me count the ways:

http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/
http://www.scirus.com/search_simple_boolean/
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search
http://arc.cs.odu.edu/ ...

And as the OAI Archives grow in content --
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt --
there will be more and better cross-archive search engines.

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:50:59 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from paquetse AT iro.umontreal.ca
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from radu AT monicsoft.net
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org

I basically agree with Thomas Krichel on all the substantive points:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:

>   institutional archives will lie empty unless there are better
>   incentives for scholars to contribute to them. If you tell
>   them that it will open their scholarship to the world to
>   read, they will listen. If you tell them, figures in hand, 
>   how much it does, and how much impact they gain---relatively
>   to their colleagues in the offices next door---they will act...
>   Basically RePEc aims to achieve a type of dataset that will allow
>   to measure impact

I agree. Steve Lawrence has gathered some data along these lines. We are
doing so too. And I know you are too. These data will help demonstrate
to the research community, quantitatively, the direct causal connection
between research access and research impact.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

>   you have to get authors to self-archive. To do that, you need
>   to find the right incentives...
>   publishing is done more with the academic colleagues in mind
>   rather than with the university's central administration 
>   in mind. Then you inevitably end up with a situation where
>   you have to get a whole discipline along to self-archive. As
>   long as others in the discipline are not doing it, there 
>   is little interest in the individual scholar doing it. 
>   You have to demonstrate that to individual academics, figures at
>   hand. In the meantime you have to collect formally archive contents.

I also agree completely that until OAI-compliant self-archiving prevails,
havesting or centralized links to authors' arbitrary websites is extremely
desirable and useful. I expect that there is an order of magnitude
more non-OAI self-archived content (preprints and postprints) on the
Web today then there is OAI. Harvesting it (citeseer-style) or linking
to it with OAI-equivalent metadata (RePec-style) is not only valuable
in itself (making a lot of open-access work more visible and usable)
but it will help encourage more self-archiving, as well as providing the
access/impact causality data that will help inspire still more! 

[Les Carr is doing it now with the 2001
UK-wide RAE returns, generating "RAEprints":
http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/submissions/ 
http://www.rareview.ac.uk/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm ]

(I couldn't quite see the point about why individuals couldn't do it,
and a whole discipline needs to be convinced. Surely individuals
come first, but never mind.) 

>   Incidentally, have you deposited all your papers in institutional
>   archives? I see some ~harnad above.

Of course! All my papers (retroactive to the 70's) have been FTP- and
then web-archived since the late '80's, as well as in CogPrints since
1997 and the Southampton ECS Archive since 1999. Both Archives have since
become OAI-compliant: 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/genpub.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/intpub.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R3DD514D3
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S60652783

(I practise what I preach!)

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):

    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 

See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative:
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess

the BOAI Forum:
    http://www.eprints.org/boaiforum.php/

the Free Online Scholarship Movement:
    http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm

the SPARC position paper on institutional repositories:
    http://www.unites.uqam.ca/src/sante.htm

the OAI site:
    http://www.openarchives.org

and the free OAI institutional archiving software site:
    http://www.eprints.org/



Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:57:13 +0200


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from freemamh AT lavc.edu
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

  Stevan Harnad writes

> Hence my conclusion that distributed, interoperable OAI institutional
> archives are enough (and the fastest route to open-access). No need
> to harvest their contents into central OAI discipline-based archives
> (except perhaps for redundancy, as backup).

  I agree. 

  But this is not what I mean by "not enough". I suggest that 
  institutional archives will lie empty unless there are better
  incentives for scholars to contribute to them. If you tell
  them that it will open their scholarship to the world to
  read, they will listen. If you tell them, figures at hand, 
  how much it does, and how much impact they gain---relatively
  to their colleagues in the offices next door---they will act.
  To be able to build such measures, you need to build complicated
  datasets. This is too complex a task to be done in all disciplines
  at once. Therefore you need to work discipline by discipline. 
  
> It should be noted, though, that Thomas Krichel's excellent RePec
> archive and service in Economics -- http://repec.org/ -- goes
> well beyond the confines of OAI-harvesting! RePec harvests non-OAI
> content too, along lines similar to the way ResearchIndex/citeseer --
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs

  Not really, these systems are quite different actually. But
  this is a matter for another email...

> by (3) self-archiving them on arbitrary Web and FTP sites (and
> hoping they will be found or harvested by services like Repec or
> ResearchIndex)

  RePEc is not a harvesting service. RePEc has pioneered the way
  OAI operates before there was OAI. The degree of interoperability
  that it achieves goes way beyond what OAI achieves at present,
  but we are only at the start with OAI, remember. Basically RePEc aims to 
  achieve a type of dataset that will allow to measure impact---as
  mentioned in my first paragraph---but it is not quite there yet.
  In the meantime, it acts as the starting point for a whole bunch
  of user and contributor services.

  (sorry, I could not resist...)

> My conclusion in favor of institutional self-archiving is based on the
> evidence and on logic, and it represents a change of thinking,
> for I had originally advocated (3) Web/FTP self-archiving --
> http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html -- then switched allegiance
> to central self-archiving (1), even creating a discipline-based archive:
> http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ But with the advent of OAI in 1999,
> plus a little reflection, it became apparent that
> institutional self-archiving (2) was the fastest, most direct, and most
> natural road to open access: http://www.eprints.org/
> And since then its accumulating momentum seems to be confirming that this
> is indeed so: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2212.html
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt

  Hmm, with you changing your mind, and with more than a little
  reflection over that many years, I think all of us on this
  forum will be convinced that the best road is not an easy topic
  to approach. I don't have the answer either, but I will show
  instead that there is no answer.

  The way I see it that if you want to achieve self-archiving,
  you have to get authors to self-archive. To do that, you need
  to find the right incentives. One way is to have Clifford Lynch
  running around campus, switching off every independent web
  service because it is a security risk, and then force faculty
  to digitally publish through a central facility. Granted, my 
  vision of Clifford's intention is exagerated, but even a milder
  form of it will not succeed. This is no way to run a university.
  Right? So you are left off to find a way in which you have to give
  incentives to academics. Now, please accept my hypothesis that
  publishing is done more with the academic colleagues in mind
  rather than with the university's central administration 
  in mind. Then you inevitably end up with a situation where
  you have to get a whole discipline along to self-archive. As
  long as others in the discipline are not doing it, there 
  is little interest in the individual scholar doing it. They
  may send the paper directly to closed-access publisher facilities
  or, may be in addition, upload it on a web site somewhere.

> >   The primary sense of belonging
> >   of a scholar in her research activities is with the disciplinary
> >   community of which she thinks herself a part... It certainly
> >   is not with the institution.
> 
> That may or may not be the case, but in any case it is irrelevant to
> the question of which is the more promising route to open-access. Our
> primary sense of belonging may be with our family, our community,
> our creed, our tribe, or even our species. But our rewards (research
> grant funding and overheads, salaries, postdocs and students attracted
> to our research, prizes and honors) are intertwined and shared with our
> institutions (our employers) and not our disciplines (which are often
> in fact the locus of competition for those same rewards!)

  Sure, that is why we need institutional support to take the competition
  head on, by maximising the impact of our work. But the object of 
  the competition is still the discipline.

> Content "aggregation," in other words, is a paper-based notion. 
In
> the online era, it merely means digital sorting of the pointers to
> the content.

  I understand that. But you can aggregate and aggregate, as 
  long as you not prove that formal archiving is improving impact,
  you are not likely to get far with your formal archiving.

> >   I am afraid, there more and more such faculty members. Much
> >   of the research papers found over the Internet are deposited
> >   in the way. This trend is growing not declining.
> 
> You mean self-archiving in arbitrary non-OAI author websites? 

  I do.

> There is another reason why institutional OAI archives and official
> institutional self-archiving policies (and assistance) are so
> important. In reality, it is far easier to deposit and maintain
> one's papers in institutional OAI archives like Eprints than to set
> up and maintain one's own website.  All that is needed is a clear
> official institutional policy, plus some startup help in launching
> it. (No such thing is possible at a "discipline" level.)

> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
> http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

  If this is what authors feel, then this is wonderful. But the
  proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the authors do not
  deposit, you will have to think (yet again) about your best
  strategy.

  Incidentally, have you deposited all your papers in institutional
  archives? I see some ~harnad above. Heaven forbid I tell Clifford
  about this :-) 

> But where there is a causal contingency -- as there is
> between (a) the research impact and its rewards, which academics like as
> much as anyone else, and (b) the accessibility of their research -- 
academics
> are surely no less responsive than Prof. Skinner's pigeons and rats to
> those causal contingencies, and which buttons they will have to press
> in order to maximize their rewards!
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

  Yes, but the arguing in the aggregate is not sufficient, I think.
  You have to demonstrate that to individual academics, figures at
  hand. In the meantime you have to collect formally archive contents.
  Institutional archives is one way, departmental is another way,
  discipline based archiving another, but there is no "right" or
  "wrong" way. Whatever way there is discipline-based services will
  be a key to providing incentives to scholars. 

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


  Thomas Krichel                         http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                     RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel



Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Linda Thede <lqthede AT apk.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:12:24 -0500


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from freemamh AT lavc.edu
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

The problem that Margaret writes about is particularly true in practice
disciplines such as nursing or physical therapy. Those in these disciplines
are also at a great disadvantage when it comes to accessing the literature -
outside of academic medical centers, few healthcare facilities have good
libraries. They of course will among the big benefactors of OAI.

I do have an additional question, and perhaps it stems from not understanding
this process, but how will all these individual institutional papers be indexed
so interested persons can find them.

"Margaret H. Freeman" wrote:

> On 3/16/03 9:15 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > The bottom line is this: The free
> > Eprints.org software (for example) can be installed within a few 
days. It
> > can then be replicated to handle all the departmental or research 
group
> > archives a university wants, with minimal maintenance time or costs. 
The
> > rest is just down to self-archiving, which takes a few minutes for 
the
> > first paper, and even less time for subsequent papers (as the 
repeating
> > metadata -- author, institution, etc., can be "cloned" into 
each new
> > deposit template). An institution may wish to impose an institutional
> > "look" on all of its separate eprints archives; but apart 
from that,
> > they can be as autonomous and as distributed and as many as desired:
> > OAI-interoperability works locally just as well as it does globally.
>
> I'd like to ask Stevan Harnad what arrangements can be made for publishing
> faculty and independent scholars who don't have the kind of institutional
> connections like a major research university for making their work OAI
> accessible without having to create personal websites. Is there some
> distributed depository that is or could be made available to them?
>
> Margaret Freeman
> Emeritus Professor
> Los Angeles Valley College

--
Linda Q. Thede
435-4 Chandler Drive
Aurora, OH 44202
lqthede AT apk.net
330-562-3281




[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .