<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bjoern Brembs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:b.brembs@gmail.com" target="_blank">b.brembs@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Eric,<br>
<br>
I am so completely and utterly on your page. This is precisely the way we need to go and every library meeting I speak at confirms this view: everyone I meet there gives me the feedback that they're ready to go for it.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The page is getting a bit crowded, and somewhat illegible!</div><div><br></div><div>Of course Eric, Bernard and I agree on the advantages of distributed institutional repositories over central ones (for direct deposit -- central repositories are fine for export or harvesting).</div>
<div><br></div><div>And that agreement is not ideological but practical.</div><div><br></div><div>But as for librarians getting out of the business of subscribing to journals -- that's just ideology (and completely unrealistic) as long as authors don't into the business of self-archiving their published articles in their institutional repositories.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And that's precisely what Green OA mandates are for.</div><div><br></div><div>Without an effective Green OA mandate, institutional repositories are useless (for OA).</div><div><br></div><div>Users need access, now, and if they can't have open access, they at least need as much subscription access as their institutions can afford.</div>
<div><br></div><div>May I suggest that we clearly distinguish our practical points from those that are merely ideological desiderata and wishful thinking?</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Monday, November 18, 2013, 5:17:37 PM, you wrote:<br>
<br>
> Stevan, Bernard:<br>
> My main concern is not with mandates, but with the<br>
> repositories themselves. If memory serves me right, there<br>
> was at least one unsuccessful attempt to defund the<br>
> NIH-run Pubmed repository. ArXiv also had an existential<br>
> crisis when run from a government lab.<br>
<br>
<br>
> The weakness of government-run repositories is that those<br>
> who want to undermine these repositories have to be<br>
> successful only once. Those who support these OA<br>
> repositories must fend off every attack.<br>
<br>
<br>
> To immunize against this, we need a distributed approach<br>
> with sufficient duplication to form an archive that is<br>
> immune from any one particular weakness. This is what<br>
> libraries have always done, and should continue to do.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Libraries have no role (except as advocates) in enacting<br>
> and enforcing mandates, but they can be useful in<br>
> implementing the mandates effectively by managing the distributed archive.<br>
<br>
><br>
> In fact, Stevan has made the same arguments against<br>
> central repositories in the past. So, I think we are all<br>
> on the same wave length here up to this point.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Where I go one step further, is in making the argument<br>
> that libraries need to get out of the digital-lending<br>
> business altogether and dedicate their efforts to the<br>
> maintenance and development of the archive. See:<br>
> Where the Puck won't be<br>
> <a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/10/where-puck-wont-be.html" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/10/where-puck-wont-be.html</a><br>
> and<br>
> Annealing the Library<br>
> <a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/04/annealing-library.html" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/04/annealing-library.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
> --Eric.<br>
<br>
<br>
> <a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com</a><br>
<br>
> Twitter: @evdvelde<br>
> E-mail: <a href="mailto:eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com">eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, <<a href="mailto:brentier@ulg.ac.be">brentier@ulg.ac.be</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Libraries are definitely places where awareness occurs.<br>
> They are the sentinels. However, they don't have enough<br>
> power (generally) to impose Open Access as a permanent reflex with researchers.<br>
> The only way researchers can be convinced is through<br>
> mandatory pressure from the funders and/or the Academic<br>
> authorities. And the only way mandates can be imposed is<br>
> through the research assessment procedures. Everything else lingers or fails.<br>
> (82% compliance with incitative mandates instead of 8%<br>
> on average with 'soft' mandates).<br>
> If the pressure is applied through Green OA mandates,<br>
> academic freedom is fully respected. All it takes is 5<br>
> minutes (max) extra work for each new publication (usually not a daily task).<br>
> Considering the benefits for the author(s), the mandate soon becomes accessory.<br>
><br>
>> Le 17 nov. 2013 ā 23:11, Bjoern Brembs <<a href="mailto:b.brembs@gmail.com">b.brembs@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br>
><br>
<br>
>>> On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:<br>
<br>
>>> The political approach may be necessary to get OA<br>
>>> enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it<br>
>>> is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems<br>
>>> to be a perfect role for libraries.<br>
<br>
>> This is a serious problem with mandates: they are liable to political influence - and billions in $$$ pay for plenty of political influence, way more than we can ever dream of having.<br>
<br>
>> I thus support Eric's motion: we need to move everything in-house, away from any political influence. Libraries are the natural place for that.<br>
<br>
>> Best wishes,<br>
<br>
>> Bjoern<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>> --<br>
>> Björn Brembs<br>
>> ---------------------------------------------<br>
>> <a href="http://brembs.net" target="_blank">http://brembs.net</a><br>
>> Neurogenetics<br>
>> Universität Regensburg<br>
>> Germany<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Björn Brembs<br>
---------------------------------------------<br>
<a href="http://brembs.net" target="_blank">http://brembs.net</a><br>
Neurogenetics<br>
Universität Regensburg<br>
Germany<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>