Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:28 +0000

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Philip Hunter wrote:

>sh> Right now, most OAI
>sh> Archives, whether institutional or disciplinary, are either (1)
>sh> non-existent, or (2) near-empty! The transition we are striving for is
>sh> from empty to full archives (and let us hope it will not be too long!),
>sh> not from disciplinary to institutional archives!
> I have to agree with this assessment. It is rather puzzling that take-up of
> the technology is (relatively) so low, and the archives are so empty

It's not quite *that* slow!

> unless
> organisational issues (such as, for example, the absence of an intelligible
> publishing process for the multiple submission of eprints to archives) are
> more important in the field than is being recognised in this discussion.

I couldn't follow this!

What is "an intelligible publishing process"?
Eprints = pre-refereeing preprints + published, refereed postprints.
Self-archiving is not self-publishing; it is merely a means of providing
open access to one's own preprints and postprints.

And what is "multiple submission of eprints to archives"?
Eprints are not submitted to archives. (They are merely deposited in
archives.) Preprints are submitted to *journals* (for peer review),
and if/when accepted, the refereed postprints are published by those
journals. Preprints and postprints are deposited (self-archived) in
Eprint Archives.

The rate of archive-creation and filling is increasing, but it needs to
be accelerated substantially, and as soon as possible. Systematic
institutional self-archiving policies will help accomplish this once
institutions realize the direct causal connection between maximizing
research access and maximizing research impact.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue Mar 18 2003 - 19:44:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:55 GMT