Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:36:47 +0000

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Muriel Foulonneau wrote:

> Are there statistics supporting a current decrease in number of deposits
> on ArXiv or CogPrints?

(1) Not yet, because IR deposits have not yet been mandated.

(2) Spontaneous (unmandated) self-archiving is on the rise, but it is
too slow.

(3) Once the self-archiving mandates take effect, their influence will
begin to be felt.

(One obstacle is that some of the self-archiving mandates -- notably
those in biomedicine -- are foolishly requiring direct deposit in
PubMed Central, rather than the natural, optimal and universal solution
of requiring direct deposit in the author's own IR, with CRs like
PubMed Central then harvesting therefrom. A little more reflection and
feedback from actual experience will straighten this out, but it's a
pity that some are rushing unthinkingly into suboptimal, non-scaleable

    Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?

(These optimality considerations do not apply to a centralized country
like France, if it can mandate the deposit of all French research output
in HAL: HAL would then be like one big national mega-institutional
repository, providing individual institutional "views" on its subsets,
much like individual IRs.)

    Forthcoming OA Developments in France (Jun 2006)

    France's HAL, OAI interoperability, and Central vs Institutional
    Repositories (Oct 2006)

    Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien,
    A., Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S. (2005) Developing a model
    for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher
    education. Learned Publishing 18(1) pp. 25-40.

Stevan Harnad

> Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> >> May I ask you when CogPrints was first created? What was its official launch date?
> >>
> >
> > CogPrints was launched August 19, 1997
> >
> >
> > I might add that CogPrints (as well as Arxiv) are obsolescent as
> > primary loci for direct deposit: Since 1999 (the OAI interoperability
> > protocol) the distributed network consisting of authors' own OAI-compliant
> > Institutional Repositories (IRs) has become the natural and optimal locus
> > for direct deposit. Central Repositories (CRs) (like Arxiv and CogPrints) if they
> > perdure at all, will become harvesters from the primary research providers
> > (IRs), rather than the locus where papers are deposited directly. The
> > same applies to PubMed Central.
> >
> > Depositing directly in a CR is as silly today as depositing directly in
> > Google! Citeseer is a better model for an OA-age CR than Arxiv, because
> > it already is (and always has been) a harvester rather than a direct
> > locus for central deposit. OAIster is another example, and there are more.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> --
> Muriel Foulonneau
> Centre pour la communication scientifique directe
> Centre National de la recherche scientifique
> IN2P3
> 12-14 bd Niels Boehr
> 69100 Villeurbanne
> Tel: +33 (0)4 72 69 52 85
> Cel: +33 (0)6 89 55 87 40
Received on Mon Dec 11 2006 - 16:12:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:39 GMT