Re: NIH mandate - institutional repositories

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:55:00 +0000

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Barbara Birenbaum wrote:

> I am an MLIS student at UCLA. I am currently working on a paper on
> institutional repositories. I understand from some of my readings
> that the reality of the institutional repository has moved in another
> direction from the concepts of both the OA model of access and the
> SPARC model of encouraging alternative methods of scholarly
> publication. Will the NIH mandate, if it is signed into law, move the
> institutional repository back to one or both of its prior purposes or
> will those concepts remain just a part of the broader scope of the
> present repositories? I would really appreciate hearing the list
> members' thoughts on this.

It was -- and continues to be -- a mistake that the NIH mandate specifies
PMC as the place to deposit. The way to get maximimum benefit from the
NIH mandate, and to generalize its benefits to all fields and all
institutions, is to specify that the deposit should be in the author's
own Institutional Repository (except in the inceasingly rare case
where the author's institution does not yet have an IR). Then PMC and
any other repository can harvest the metadata (and, if desired, the
deposit itself).

Here is the optimal mandate:
"Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?"

Stevan Harnad

If you have adopted or plan to adopt a 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 an open-access journal if/when
    a suitable one exists.
    in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
    in your own institutional repository.
Received on Tue Nov 20 2007 - 18:57:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:07 GMT