<div dir="ltr"><br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk" target="_blank">ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (<a href="http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua</a>) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Not contradictory at all:<div><br></div><div>Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own.</div><div><br></div><div>We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, <i>but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. </i></div><div><br></div><div>This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two,</div><div><br></div><div>But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES:</div><div><br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><div><div>On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">...<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">For a while I’ve been pondering our process:<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Deposit -> Review -> Live.<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I want to change it to:<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button).<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">In parallel:<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">- Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can.<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">- Metadata validation/enrichment<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Does that sound like a better model than we currently use?<br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <br></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Cheers, </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">John, </span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Repository developer, based in a Library</span></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be </span><i style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">absolutely splendid!</i><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><i><br></i></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">(It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.)</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Best wishes,</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Stevan Harnad</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stevan Harnad<br><b>Sent:</b> 23 September 2014 14:33<br><b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Andrew is so right. <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has "fast lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u>Librarians</u>: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done <i>after</i> the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made <i>immediately</i> OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">P.S. This is all <i>old</i>. We've been through this countless times before.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dixit<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all sides...<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams <<a href="mailto:aaa@meiji.ac.jp" target="_blank">aaa@meiji.ac.jp</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><br>The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the<br>way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and<br>full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was<br>involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before<br>the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they<br>have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material<br>uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings<br>at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for<br>example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming<br>visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value<br>and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic<br>nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.<br><br>(*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why,<br>butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this policy, it's a<br>mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong<br>management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a<br>spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this<br>policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so<br>they're unwilling to give it a strong name.<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><br><span>--</span><br><span>Professor Andrew A Adams <a href="mailto:aaa@meiji.ac.jp" target="_blank">aaa@meiji.ac.jp</a></span><br><span>Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and</span><br><span>Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics</span><br><span>Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan <a href="http://www.a-cubed.info/" target="_blank">http://www.a-cubed.info/</a></span><br><br><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>GOAL mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a></span></span><u></u><u></u></font></span></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div><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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>