Re: Workflow and Copyright retention is not a prerequisite for self-archiving

From: Thierry CHANIER <>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:57:12 +0100

Dear all,
I would like to come back to part of Jeffery's message and Stephen's answer.
I completely agree with Stephen's answer concerning the rejection of any
kind of official approvement by an insitution of a researcher's deposit
with respects to IP consideration (otherwise OA are dead).
Of course, moderators of an archive whether institutional or central have
to moderate before the deposit comes on line (but it is not a scientific
approval / stamps / etc.).

But I understand Jeffery's worries for the acceleration and improvements
of numbers of deposits on OA servers and the reference to the workflow.

Here is an exemple of how we start to proceed on this issue in France
(other ways are also explored). As you may be aware of last December 2005
all the French public research insitutions (Cnrs, Inserm, Inria, Inra,
head of universities(CPU), etc.) have agreed that the central OA will be
HAL ( ). What does it means ?
Every lab will have a mini site on HAL, where all deposits made by its
researchers (auto-archiving process) will appear on this site (which is
part of the central server Hal), i.e. when a deposit is made by an
researcher an automatic stamp (belonging and managed by the lab) is put on
the deposit, the stamp makes it possible to automaticaly display all the
publications of the lab.
On another hand every university have (just opened) their own mini site on
HAL. We then are working in order to automatically stamped deposits to the
lab as being also recognized as deposits to the university.
This is a way to achieve a real workflow : author -> Lab -> university ->
national archive

Thierry Chanier
--------------------- extracts from previosu messages -----------------
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jeffery, KG (Keith) wrote:
>> For me there are two very important steps:
>> (a) the need for mandating (else people have - in their opinion -
>> better things to do with their precious time)
>> (b) the need to make deposit as easy / quick / foolproof as possible:
>> for me this means integrating it into the workflow of an institution /
>> organisation (which as a by-product favours institutional repositories):
> So far, so good.
> But now this:
>> example - if an organisation is to own the IP in a publication it should
>> approve of its publication (or even pre-publication/deposit); this
>> implies a workflow where the author requests permission and once granted
>> deposit is automatic.
> Where on earth did this "owning the IP in a publication" come from?
Received on Sat Mar 11 2006 - 11:44:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:15 GMT