<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Sue Gardner <<a href="mailto:sgardner2@UNL.EDU">sgardner2@UNL.EDU</a>> wrote:<br><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">As repository managers, many of us are having trouble envisioning getting from where we are currently to what the original OA movement idealistically proposed. This is due to the practical constraints we are faced with (such as restrictive publishers’ policies including not allowing posting of published versions even a decade and more after publication, lack of ready access to authors’ manuscripts, etc.). The solutions being offered to move toward the initial goal include author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE, and others, which are—from my standpoint as a repository manager—one-and-all ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">In populating our repository within the varied constraints, and in offering non-mandated, mediated deposit, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln we are taking a bottom-up approach to access (from the author to the reader) and, as Paul Royster has pointed out, it leaves us in the odd position of actually standing outside the OA movement as it is defined. We have seen forces gather (led by publishers and others) that have further galvanized our peripheral position. From my perspective, these forces intend that the initial vision of OA will be realized on the backs of the authors themselves (with author-pays schemes, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, etc.).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Should authors have to bear the brunt of the OA movement? To some extent, of course, but ultimately that seems counterproductive since they are the ones who generate the content. As librarians and as the in-house publishing unit within the library, we work with, and for, authors daily and we help them get their work out to readers. We assist with interpretation of permissions, upload the work, and so on. They create, we facilitate access to their creations.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">In summary, in the discussions that have ensued on the various lists this past week, I see a disconnect between what I experience on a daily basis working with the IR and what we say as a community we are trying to achieve.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></a></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Sue Gardner<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Ebrima; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Scholarly Communications Librarian</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Three questions for Nebraska-Lincoln (N-L) Libraries, in order of importance:<div><br></div><div><i><b>(1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal </b></i></div><div><i><b>articles (only) </b></i><i><b><u>per year</u> is deposited in the N-L Repository?</b></i></div><div><br></div><div>(Without that figure, there is no way of knowing how well N-L is doing, compared</div><div>to other institutional repositories, mandated or unmandated.)</div><div><br></div><div>Simple way to estimate the above (<i>but you have to keep track of both the </i></div><div><i>publication date and the deposit date</i>): Sample total annual N-L output from</div><div>WoS or SCOPUS and then test what percentage of it is deposited (and</div><div>when). That can be benchmarked against other university repositories.</div><div><br></div><div><i><b>(2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? </b></i></div><div><br></div><div>The right mandate — immediate-deposit of all refereed final drafts </div><div>immediately upon acceptance for publication — plus the request-copy </div><div>Button during any allowable publisher embargo interval — works </div><div>(especially if librarians keep mediating during the start-up and if</div><div>deposit is designated as the sole means of submitting articles for </div><div>performance-review). Try it.</div><div><br></div><div><i><b>(3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?</b></i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div>They’re opposites… Only one of them is objectively describable as</div><div>the "author bearing the brunt” (and that’s having to shell out a lot</div><div>of money — not just do a few extra keystrokes -- or else give up </div><div>journal-choice).</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div></div></div><br></body></html>