Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

From: Ian Stuart <Ian.Stuart_at_ED.AC.UK>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:27:51 +0000

Tom Franklin wrote:
> If those interests were real then people would be doing it already. If it
> would help with RAE or REF then a very large number (those who are, or
> would
> like to be, research active) would get involved and do it.
Southampton did that, and it was very successful... but it takes a lot of
commitment at lots of levels to make it work:
- Diktat from the top of the university
- "Hearts and minds" encouragement at a personal level
- Support staff on hand to help and guide depositors

> If my intuition is correct then the purpose of the IR is to provide a
> potentially free alternative source to journals for published papers and
> possibly access to the raw data (presumably linked from the paper).
An IR is like any other web page: it is there to promote.
An IR is specifically to promote the research done at an Institution - after
all, researchers want to work at good/successful research institutions and
institutions want to have well-known researchers working for them.

An IR is all about selling the corporation: some can view it as selling "The
University of Trumpton", others more as selling "Professor Pugh"... either
way, it's a symbiotic relationship: one needs the other.

.... and the big advantage of the openly accessible repository is that
google *does* search it; Yahoo *does* search it; *does* search
it; and, yes, the Intute Repository Search will do too.

IR's, as a concept, are here to stay.
The problem is, as people are saying, how to fill them.

Ian Stuart.
Bibliographics and Multimedia Service Delivery team,
The University of Edinburgh.
Received on Mon Mar 10 2008 - 11:28:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:15 GMT