Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: BiorXiv: Deposit Institutionally, Export Centrally
From: "Gerritsma, Wouter" <wouter.gerritsma AT wur.nl>
Stevan Another example of this principle is Agris from the FAO which is fed by local ↵ repositories and instutional bibliogrpahies. And this has been working for ↵ years already. Wouter From: boai-forum-bounces AT ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:boai-forum-bounces AT ↵ ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: woensdag 13 november 2013 12:15 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositories Subject: [BOAI] BiorXiv: Deposit Institutionally, Export Centrally Physicists have been spontaneously self-archiving in Arxiv since ↵ 1991<http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions>, but most other ↵ disciplines have not followed suit, despite the demonstrated ↵ benefits<http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html> of providing ↵ open access in terms of research uptake, usage and impact. It is for this reason that research funders and institutions worldwide are (at ↵ last) beginning to mandate<http://roarmap.eprints.org/> (i.e., require) ↵ that their fundees and faculty self-archive. For open access mandates to work, however, it has to be possible to ↵ systematically monitor and verify ↵ compliance<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=M1SDUuP5HsuMyAGsyYCwDw#q=(%22open+access%22+OR+OA)+mandates+monitor+compliance+harnad+>. Not all research is funded (and there are many different research funders); but ↵ virtually all research comes from institutions (universities and research ↵ institutes), most of which now have institutional ↵ repositories<http://roar.eprints.org/> for their researchers to ↵ self-archive in. Institutions are hence the natural (and eager) partners best placed to fulfill ↵ the all-important role of monitoring and ensuring ↵ compliance<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=(monitor+OR+verify)+compliance+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg> with the requirements of their own researchers' grant requirements, via their own institutional repositories. (This also gives institutions the incentive to adopt open access self-archiving mandates of their own, for all their research output, funded and unfunded, in all disciplines.) Researchers, in turn, should only need to deposit their articles once, ↵ institutionally -- not willy-nilly, and multiply, in diverse ↵ institution-external repositories. The solution is simple, since all open access repositories are interoperable, ↵ meaning they share the same core metadata-tagging system, and hence each ↵ institution's repository software can automatically export its metadata to any ↵ other institution-external repository desired. That way researchers need only deposit once, in their own institutional ↵ repository; institutional and funder open access mandates areconvergent and ↵ cooperative<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=convergent+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg> rather than divergent and competitive; and mandate compliance can be reliably and systematically ensured by the author's institution. So Biorxiv<http://biorxiv.org/> is a welcome addition to the growing list ↵ of disciplinary ↵ repositories<http://roar.eprints.org/view/type/subject.html> for ↵ centralized search and retrieval, but deposit in Biorxiv should not be direct: ↵ researchers should export to it from their institutional repositories. (Biorxiv ↵ can also harvest from institutional repositories, just as Google and Google ↵ Scholar do.) Biologists and biomedical scientists, unlike physicists, do not have a culture ↵ of spontaneous self-archiving. Hence open access mandates from funders and ↵ institutions are needed if there is to be open access to their research. And ↵ those mandates have to be readily complied with; and compliance has to be ↵ readily verifiable. So let us not lose another quarter century hoping that biologists will at last ↵ do, of their own accord, what Arxiv users have already been doing, unmandated, ↵ since 1991. In 1994 there was already a "Subversive ↵ Proposal<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Proposal>" -- ↵ unheeded -- that all disciplines should do as the Arxivers had done. Harold ↵ Varmus made a similar proposal<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/272404/> ↵ ("e-biomed") in 1999, likewise unheeded. Let us start getting it right in 2013, the year that funders in the US, EU and ↵ UK have begun concertedly mandating open access, along with a growing number of ↵ institutions worldwide. But let us ↵ harmonize<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/10/22/swan-eu-open-access-policy/> the mandates, to ensure that they work: Arxiv has certainly earned the right to remain the sole ↵ exception<http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2013/aug/01/the-reality-of-open-access>, insofar as direct deposit is concerned, being the only institution-external repository in which authors have already been faithfully self-archiving, unmandated, for almost a quarter century: For Arxiv, institutional repositories can import instead of export. But for the ↵ rest: Deposit institutionally, export centrally.
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .