Re: Against Conflating OA Self-Archiving With Preservation-Archiving

From: Jeffery, KG (Keith) <"Jeffery,>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:22:01 +0100

Dear Colleagues -

It is worth noting that an objection to open access voiced somewhat
commonly is that the author is not confident that their work output will
be preserved 'for all time'. Of course there is no guarantee with a
journal either but there is some confidence that research output
deposited with a respectable journal will continue to be available
(although in a digital age this may be less secure).

While I agree with Stevan that the primary objective is to rise from 15%
to 100% deposition of metadata and full (hypermedia) publication I
believe the word 'archive' is no bad thing as it gives authors the
'feeling' of long-term preservation of their research output.

Prof Keith G Jeffery Director Information Technology
and International Strategy CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
T:+44 1235 44 6103 Chilton, Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK
F:+44 1235 44 5147
WWW Person:
President ERCIM & CCLRC Director:
W3C Office at CLRC-RAL
President euroCRIS
VLDB Trustee Emeritus:
EDBT Board Member
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients
do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this
email to the sender and delete your copy of it
The CCLRC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with
the policy available from

-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: 11 July 2006 16:21
Subject: Re: Against Conflating OA Self-Archiving With

While the primary purpose of self-archiving is access, not preservation
or interoperable searching, self-archiving in an OAI- compliant archive
accomplishes all of these. This is important, because many people are
practising a form of self-archiving by simply posting papers to
websites. This does enhance access, but not as much as an archive
would. It is helpful, in my view, to the building and filling of the
archives, if we can point to all of the archives'
benefits, emphasizing of course the key benefits of enhanced access and

Heather Morrison

On 11-Jul-06, at 7:19 AM, Hamaker, Chuck wrote:

> With a goal of OA ASAP, semantic barriers need to be minimal if they
> stand in the way of clarification. Self Archiving as a term, while
> used by the current community, seems to be a barrier (as implied by
> the need for Stevan's earlier post) to easy explanation and
> understanding of the goal for those who aren't involved directly in
> that community.
> Several libraries and others have decided to shed the
> repository/depository labels for OA specific tools (there's just too
> much baggage and too many others who consider themselves stakeholders
> in those arenas) a clearer label might clarify from the beginning any
> discussion of the goal.
> Chuck Hamaker
> Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
> Atkins Library University of North Carolina Charlotte Charlotte, NC
> 28223 phone 704 687-2825
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Against Conflating OA Self-Archiving With
> Preservation-Archiving
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Hamaker, Chuck wrote:
>> Perhaps we need to call it something else like OA self-provision
> instead
>> of self-archiving?
> It's a bit late in the day to change terminology: "self-archiving" is
> at least 12 years old (sensu online access-provision, nothing to do
> with
> preservation archiving):
> (The interested reader will find there that even the discussion of
> distributed local institutional vs. central self-archiving already
> predated the 1999 AmSci discussions by at least 5 years!)
> subject.html#294
> And the "Open Archives [sic] Initiative" metadata harvesting (sensu
> interoperability, again nothing to do with preservation archiving)
> has been with us since 1999:
> We have since already waffled confusingly and needlessly with
> "archive"
> vs. "repository" vs "depository" or what have you, and still we have
> not succeeded in shaking off the tenacious mis-associations with
> preservation archiving. I think we have no choice but to make the
> mental
> effort to remember that "archiving" is polysemous, and not synonymous
> with
> "preservation."
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Wed Jul 12 2006 - 12:40:44 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:26 GMT