Re: Poynder Again on Point on Institutional Repositories

From: hbosc <>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:56:22 +0100

I too agree with distinguishing "Open Access Archives" from "Institutional
Repositories". It could help to solve my problem:

In 2002, I set up an Open Access Archive trying to give immediate
access to recent articles of researchers in my lab.

But ever since I subsequently retired, my colleagues have been
depositing essentially old articles!

Of course this too is necessary, because those older articles are
important and difficult to find. But now, when I refer to my institution's
"Open Access Archive," I feel rather uncomfortable, because its practice
has since turned into something other that what my own efforts and
writings about Open Access has been trying to promote, and indeed
other than what OA really means: free and immediate access,
not back access.

Hélène Bosc

Lundi, 6 Mars 2006, vous écriviez :

>Separation of the terms "Open Access Archives" for OA research and
>"Institutional Repositories", makes a great deal of sense to me.
>One of the reasons for this is that "Open Access" clarifies the
>expected access status.
>The term "Institutional Repository" seems better suited to the
>broader range of material produced by the institution, some of which
>should not be openly accessible (such as personnel and student
>records). Many organizations will probably end up with more than
>one repository, for different kinds of materials, precisely because
>of the necessary difference in access.
>The Open Access Archive can be hosted on a server which needs little
>security, for example; only enough to prevent hacking of the archive
>itself, not authentication. Other types of materials that will end
>up in different repositories need much more security. Mixing these
>up complicates both set-up and running of the repositories /
>archives; it is best to keep them separate.
>It is appropriate, in my view, that the Open Access Archives be the
>immediate priority for libraries, and this is indeed the case in
>practice if not in name for the libraries I am familiar with. Small
>p preservation (ensuring backups, etc.), should be fine for now; some
>of the details of long-term Preservation still need to be worked out,
>at any rate.
>Heather Morrison
>On 6-Mar-06, at 9:54 AM, EPT wrote:
>> I agree with Richard Poynder's suggestion for a divorce between the
>> *terms*
>> used
>> for the overarching institutional repository being considered by
>> the library
>> community and the simple OA archive for published research
>> articles. If both
>> activities have the same name there will be inevitable confusion.
>> As others
>> are rightly saying, IRs may take a while to establish, may rightly
>> be the
>> subject of intense discussion and will be costly, whereas the
>> latter can be
>> done very simply and is low cost.
>> Richard proposes that the archives to hold the research
>> publications of a
>> research group/organisation be called 'Open Access Archives' and
>> the term
>> 'Institutional Repository' be reserved for the campus-wide
>> activity. OA
>> Archives is a term those of us working with developing countries have
>> generally used. It sits comfortably with Open Access Publishing, so
>> we have
>> OAA (green, BOAI 1) and OAP (gold, BOAI 2).
>> I don't know the rights of different claims to the first use of the
>> term
>> Institutional Repositories, but it would seem appropriate for the
>> all-embracing 'digital collections capturing and preserving the
>> intellectual
>> output of a single or multi-university community' (Crow, 2002). I
>> think to
>> separate the terms would help remove confusions among those new
to the
>> topic.We are aware of the difficulties new-comers have in
>> distinguishing
>> between open access, open access archiving, open access publishing
>> institutional repositories (see the FAQ I worry about...) and an
>> agreed
>> separation of terms would certainly help.
>> This is not to say that an IR cannot also embrace its OA Archive,
>> as already
>> happens for example at CERN, QUT, Minho University and other dynamic
>> organisations ..... it is just to say that terms used to describe
>> each could
>> usefully be separated.
>> Barbara

Hélène Bosc
Chargée de mission INRA (ret.)
Euroscience Member
Convenor of the workgroup on scientific publishing

tel : Home 33(0)2 47 54 27 26
Received on Tue Mar 07 2006 - 15:15:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:14 GMT