DASER II Summit: Institutional Repositories and Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:45:12 +0000

        DASER-2's theme is:
        Open Access and Institutional Repositories
        University of Maryland, College Park MD
        2-4 December 2005

Below is the summary of my own presentation:

    Institutional Repository (IR) Models:
    What Works (for Open Access, OA) and What Doesn't

        Stevan Harnad
        Canada Research Chair
        Université du Québec à Montréal
        University of Southampton, UK

    SUMMARY: Born under the influence of the Open Access (OA) movement,
    Institutional Repositories (IRs) for digital content are now all
    the rage; but whether or not they work depends on their raison
    d'etre. There are many things one can do with an IR. One can use
    it for content management, preservation, internal data-sharing,
    record-keeping; the content itself can be anything digital, whether
    courseware, "gray literature," multimedia, in-house publishing, or
    even bought-in 3rd-party content. None of this has anything whatsoever
    to do with OA, however. OA is about maximizing accessibility to
    institutional peer-reviewed research output in order to maximize its
    research impact (25%-250% of it lost if non-OA), thereby maximizing
    institutional research productivity and progress (and prestige and
    research revenue). OA content in IRs is so far very sparse (averaging
    less than 15% of annual research output) -- partly because OA has
    been eclipsed by the many other items on the IR wish-list, partly
    because even where it is the only item, wishing is not enough:
    not if librarians wish it, not even if researchers wish it. The two
    international UK JISC author surveys have shown clearly exactly what
    is needed to fill IRs with their annual OA content: An extension of
    institutions' and research funders' "publish or perish" mandate to:
    "publish but also self-archive in your IR". The 5 institutions that
    so far have such a mandate (CERN, U. Southampton ECS, U. Minho,
    Queensland U. Tech, and U. Zurich) are well on their way to 100%
    OA; ad lib archives are not. After a crashing failure by NIH to
    mandate immediate OA self-archiving, and a halting half-step by the
    Wellcome Trust (6-month embargo), Research Councils UK (RCUK) looks
    poised to do the right thing at last, and once it does, the rest of
    the world's research funders and institutions will follow suit. The
    race is now to the swift, the battle to the strong, for the 25%-250%
    OA impact advantage is partly a competitive advantage.

JISC Surveys: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11005/
OA Impact Advantage: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm
Institutional Policies: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
Institutional Archives: http://archives.eprints.org/ (offline because of fire)
RCUK Policy Proposal: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp
Prior AmSci Threads:
    "EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?" (started Feb 2003)

Stevan Harnad

A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
        To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
        Post discussion to:

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:

    BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when
            a suitable one exists.
    in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
            in your institutional repository.
Received on Mon Nov 14 2005 - 14:32:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:06 GMT