I ask for an explanation about what appears like a logical gap to me. All I get in response is a series of references which reiterate the same thesis over and over.
This must be Stevan Harnad's notion of what a civil debate must be like... It goes roughly like this:
I (SH) am right.
If they disagree it is because they have not understood.
So I must repeat
And repeat
And repeat
until they either shut up (allusion to wasted bandwidth, for example)
or
they agree (and hopefully just fade away).
Sorry, my dear harnad, but this is not my notion of a civil debate.
And I still do not understand how a mandate to deposit NIH-financed articles into the NIH repository interferes with the development of IR's. But I believe I know why I do not understand: there is nothing to understand.
Jean-Claude Guédon
-------- Message d'origine--------
De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad
Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 19:49
À: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Objet : Re: RE : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude <
jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
> How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response?
> There is a logical gap here which indeed does not register.
A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access
Policy<
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04&L=AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM&F=l&P=92016>
(Oct
2004)
Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA
Policy!<
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&F=l&P=2453>
(Jan
2005)
National Institutes of Health: Report on the NIH Public Access Policy. In:
Department of Health and Human
Services<
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/Final_Report_20060201.pdf> (Jan
2006, reporting 3.8% compliance rate after 8 months for its first,
non-mandatory deposit policy)
Central versus institutional
self-archiving<
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/133-guid.htm>
(Sep
2006)
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why?
How?<
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html>(Sep
2006)
THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally
<
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/Harnad-driverstate2.html>(Jan
2008)
Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest
Centrally <
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/344-guid.html>(Jan
2008)
Yet Another Reason for Institutional OA Mandates: To Reinforce and Monitor
Compliance With Funder OA Mandates (Feb 2008)
How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access
Mandates<
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html>
(Mar
2008)
One Small Step for NIH, One Giant Leap for Mankind
<
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/375-guid.html>(Mar
2008)
NIH Invites Recommendations on How to Implement and Monitor Compliance with
Its OA Self-Archiving
Mandate<
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/381-guid.html>
(Apr
2008)
Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central
Repositories<
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/414-guid.html>
(Jun
2008)
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude <
jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> One more exercise of turning in circles. The main point is that the NIH
mandate does not affect at all the way in which institutional repositories
develop. If it did, I would like to have very precise and concrete
examples...
>
> Let's go once more:
>
> How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? There is a logical gap
here which indeed does not register. And, as it is repeated twice further on
in Harnad's answer, one must assume it is one of his strong but mysterious
convictions that we must all follow or be treated as heretics.
>
> The NIH mandate is quite effective as is. No need to spend so much time to
tweak it further.
>
> Saying that we must deposit first and think about retrieval later is
really not good planning. In fact it is quite naive.
>
> If they shop in PMC, why could they not search through PMC as well?
>
> The reference to direct deposit in Google is beside the point, of course.
If it is an attempt at humour or irony, it is just that: an attempt.
>
> Researchers use PM to find articles, then go to PMC to retrieve those
articles that are in OA. Were they in other deposits, the linkage would be
more complex and more fragile.
>
> Finally, Harnad's conclusion is the one I was hoping to see: either you
follow my way very narrowly or you contribute to slowing down the progress
of OA. In other times and places, i suspect I would end up on a wood pile
for ultimate purification of my soul...
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine--------
> De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad
> Date: jeu. 24/07/2008 13:51
> À: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Objet : Re: Harnad's faulty thinking on OA deposit and APA policy
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude <
> jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> > I agree that a repository without a mandate is ineffective.
Consequently,
> > arguing that one is not against "institution-external OA depositories"
> > while "driving against mandating direct deposit" is more than a little
> > disingenuous.
>
> Perhaps if it is shorter, it will register:
>
> (1) I am and have always been an ardent and vocal supporter of NIH's
> self-archiving mandate
>
> (2) I am arguing for one tiny but crucial change in its implementational
> detail: stipulate deposit in IRs and harvest to PMC, rather than direct
> deposit in PMC
>
> (3) Purpose: To facilitate universal institutional mandates, covering all
OA
> output, in all fields, funded and unfunded
>
> > Fighting against the mandate is tantamount to ensuring ineffectiveness
> > which is of course what Harnad wishes for these "institutional-external
OA
> > depositories".
>
> I have no idea what disingenuous motives Jean-Claude is attributing to me,
> or why.
>
> I am not fighting against the NIH mandate, I am fighting to make it more
> effective.
>
> > The distributed solution of IRs remains flaky when it comes to
retrieving
> > articles.
>
> Let's get the articles deposited in there and we'll see how flaky
retrieval
> proves to be...
>
> > researchers in a given discipline like to go to a one-stop entry point
to
> > find their documentation.
>
> Fine, let them shop at PMC. But let direct deposit be in the IR, with PMC
> harvesting therefrom.
>
> > Perhaps Google will be that universal entry point some time in the
future,
> > but this is not presently the case...
>
> Wherever OA content is deposited, that is where harvesters -- such as
> Google, Oaister, Scirus, Scopus, Web Of Science, Citeseer, Citebase -- or
> PMC -- can and will get it.
>
> Or do you think we should be depositing directly in google too?
>
> > For biomedical researchers, knowing that PubMed is the place for
> > bibliographic searches *and* document retrieval is a clear advantage.
> > [this] amply justifies the decision by NIH to have the research articles
> > they finance deposited in their depository.
>
> PM is not the same as PMC. PM links to PMC. And PMC contains only the
> articles that have been made OA.
>
> Mandating OA is amply justified. Harvesting into PMC is amply justified.
>
> Mandating direct deposit in PMC instead of IRs is arbitrary, has no
> intrinsic justification, and is counterproductive for the growth of the
rest
> of OA (across institutions and disciplines, funded and unfunded)
>
> > Furthermore, the NIH deposit does not prevent a parallel deposit in the
> > local IR.
>
> If the problem were preventing deposits, rather than requiring them, we
> would not need any sort of mandate.
>
> The point is that institutions are the research-providers -- of
> all research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded. Funder mandates
> need to facilitate institutional mandates, not complicate them.
>
> > Finally, so long as solutions roughly work in the same direction, let
> > us agree to support them all.
>
> Moving roughly in the direction of OA has already taken a decade and a
half.
> Let us resolve needless complications that simply delay it more.
>
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Jul 25 2008 - 01:55:14 BST