<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2013-04-03, at 9:10 PM, LIBLICENSE Kathleen Shearer wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">I am looking for information about agreements with publishers to<br>deposit articles directly into institutional repositories.<br><br>I know that BioMed Central is doing this for a number of universities.<br>I have also heard that some universities have negotiated direct<br>deposit with other publishers, but I don't have any details.<br><br>Have you, or do you know of any universities that have negotiated this?<br>Any information you could send me related to direct deposit agreements<br>between institutions and publishers would be most appreciated.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Kathleen, I don't have any data on publisher agreements on proxy deposit</div><div>into institutional repositories, but I can tell you it's an extremely bad idea, </div><div>for a number of reasons:<div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px; "><div>1. The only sure way to achieve 100% open access is to have a rational, </div><div>systematically verifiable system of deposit and monitoring.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Instititions are the providers of all research output, whether published in</div><div>OA journals or subscription journals.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Spontaneous, unmandated OA self-archiving by authors is growing much </div><div>too slowly.</div><div><br></div><div>4. The only way to accelerate OA to 100% is for authors' institiutions and </div><div>funders to mandate OA self-archiving.</div><div><br></div><div>5. Institutions are the only ones in a position to systematically monitor and </div><div>ensure OA mandate compliance, such that <i>all</i> of their research output is </div><div>self-archived in their institutional repository.</div><div><br></div><div>6. If some deposits are institutional and some are institution-external </div><div>(central), and some deposits are done by authors and some by publishers, </div><div>it makes it impossible or extremely complicated to systematically monitor </div><div>and ensure that all research output is deposited.</div><div><br></div><div>7. Self-archiving in the institutional repository immediately upon publication </div><div>hence has to be made a mandatory part of the standard research work-flow </div><div>for all institutional researchers (just a few extra keystrokes per paper</div><div>upon acceptance for publication). (Even librarian proxy deposit is not a </div><div>good idea.)</div><div><br></div><div>8. Instead allowing or encouraging publishers to do the deposit -- either paid OA </div><div>publishers, or subscription publishers after their self-imposed embargoes </div><div>have elapsed -- takes the control of OA provision out of the hands of authors </div><div>and institutions, and leaves it in the hands of publishers.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hence I suggest it is a much, much more effective and far-sighted strategy for institutions </div><div>to adopt effective, systematic, verifiable institutional OA self-archiving mandates (reinforced </div><div>by funder mandates) than to be drawn into any side-deals with publishers, whether OA </div><div>publishers or subscription publishers. To do so is a Torjan Horse of a Faustian Bargain</div><div>(take your pick of metaphors!).</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">M. Kathleen Shearer<br>Research Associate<br>Canadian Association of Research Libraries<br><a href="mailto:kathleen.shearer@carl-abrc.ca">kathleen.shearer@carl-abrc.ca</a><br>(514) 847-9068<br>skype: kathleen.shearer2<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>