Re: Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central Repositories

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:51:56 -0400

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Beth Tillinghast wrote:

> Can you and others on this list speak to the issue of an institutional
> mandate for researchers to deposit their output in the insitution's own
> IR. I know some institutions are taking this position, but I have also
> read a number of articles advising against this approach.

Please see the links I attached to my post, below.

See also:


Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online
RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK
Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper
and easier. Ariadne 35.

Harnad, S. (2006) Maximizing Research Impact Through Institutional and
National Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates. In Proceedings of
CRIS2006. Current Research Information Systems: Open Access
Institutional Repositories. Bergen, Norway. Jeffrey, K., Eds.

Harnad, S. (2006) Self-archiving should be mandatory. Research

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.

> At 12:20 PM 6/7/2008, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>> Beth Tillinghast wrote on the DSpace list:
>> > I have just run into my first case where I am finding our IR in
>> > competition with a Subject Repository...
>> > I am wondering if others have run into this dilemma and can provide
>> > me with many good reasons why submission should take place in and
>> > institutional repository rather than a subject repository?
>> The dilemma has a simple, optimal and universal solution:
>> Direct deposit should be in the IR. SRs and CRs can harvest from IRs.
>> That's what the OAI protocol is for. Institutions are the research
>> providers. They are the ones with the direct stake in the record-keeping
>> and showcasing of their own research output, and in maximizing its
>> accessibility, visibility, usage and impact. Institutions are also in
>> the position to mandate that their own research output be deposited in
>> their own IR; funder mandates can reinforce that, and can benefit from
>> institutional monitoring and oversight (as long as they too mandate
>> institutional deposit and central harvesting, rather than direct central
>> deposit).
>> Convergent institutional self-archiving makes sound sense and scales
>> systematically to cover all of research output space, whereas divergent
>> self-archiving, willy-nilly in SRs and CRs is arbitrary and simply
>> produces confusion, conflict, and frustration in researchers, if they
>> need to deposit multiply.
>> (Before you reply to sing the praises of SRs and CRs, recall that their
>> virtues are identical if they are harvested rather than the loci of
>> direct deposit. The overwhelming benefit of IR deposit is that that is
>> the way to ensure that all research output is universally self-archived.)
>> THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally
>> How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates
>> Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally
>> Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Jun 09 2008 - 23:53:55 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:21 GMT