Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:33:15 +0000

  Stevan Harnad writes

> What is needed, urgently, today, is universal self-archiving, and
> not trivial worries about whether to do it here or there or both:
> OAI-interoperability makes this into a non-issue from the
> self-archiver's point of view, and merely a technical feature to
> sort out, from the OAI-developers' point of view.

  Success here depends on selling the idea to academics, and that
  depends crucially on what business models are followed.

> What Chris has in mind is only one, exceptional, special case,
> namely, the Physics ArXiv, a disciplinary archive (but the *only*
> one) which is, since 1991, well on the road to getting filled in
> certain subareas of physics (200,000+ papers) (although even this
> archive is still a decade from completeness at its present linear
> growth rate: see slide 10 of
> )

  There are other special cases. In fact each of the disciplines
  that have traditionally issued preprints and working papers,
  i.e. computer science, economomics, mathematics and physics
  has its own special case. All have their own business model.
  One size does not fit all.

> No need! First, because the "duplification of effort" is so minimal

  It will not be, especially when there is a chance to have
  different versions in different archives, this could be
  rather, if not highly, problematic.

> It is such a small issue that it does not belong in a general discussion
> of open access and self-archiving for researchers.

  You constantly belittle techncial problems, and then you wonder
  why the archives are staying empty or do not exist. Answer: because
  these "technical problems" have not been solved. By belittling
  them, you put yourself in the way of finding a solution.

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,

  Thomas Krichel
Received on Tue Mar 18 2003 - 21:33:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:56 GMT