[GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 01/04/2020 01.12, Thomas Krichel wrote:
>   Sarven Capadisli writes
> 
>> Does the "the right way" to contribute to scientific communication in
>> context of OA require the use of (non- or for-profit) third-party
>> services as opposed to self-publishing?
> 
>   Yes, it does
> 
>> If so, why?
> 
>   because there needs to be persistency to the published output that a
>   person can not provide. However that persistency layer could be
>   constructed in such a way that it cost way less than what is paid,
>   mainly by libraries, to keep the current system going.  I'm
>   currently working on building a persistency layer for RePEc. It's
>   work funded with a 3000 Euro grant by the French central bank 
>   foundation for economic research.
> 


By persistency, I assume you mean archival ie. a source deemed to be
trustable as it promises to preserve knowledge for long-term. Along the
lines of [1].

Isn't archiving an independent and an external function that any actor
should have read-write access to ie. to create snapshots and read
existing ones?

Third-party (non- or for-profit) publishing services neither provide the
archival service or expected to, but merely act as a proxy. So then why
is it expected that self-publishers are required to fulfil the archiving
function?


[1]

* any Web-wide publicly usable archival services, eg. Internet Archive,
archive.is, WebCite, Perma.cc, Webrecorder;

* dedicated digital preservation organisations, eg. Portico;

* libraries, eg. LOCKSS;

* global archives preserving content on behalf of all libraries, eg.
CLOCKSS;

* subscription based service for all kinds of libraries, federal
institutions, state archives, NGOs, eg. Archive-It;

* state or federal archives, eg. Swiss Federal Archives, Library and
Archives Canada;

* institutional-run digital archives, eg. TIB, Zenodo


-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i