On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude
<jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
> 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.
(1) because it forces authors whose institutions have an institutional
mandate to deposit twice;
(2) because it forces institutions that do not have an institutional
mandate to propose requiring their (NIH) authors to deposit twice;
(3) because, being much-imitated, it encourages other funders to
likewise mandate central deposit, which forces more authors to deposit
twice, or even more often, in ever more repositories;
(4) because it fails to reinforce the adoption of institutional
mandates, and hence fails to reinforce the self-archiving of unfunded
institutional research output;
(5) because it makes institutional self-archiving harder rather than
easier, and makes institutional author resistance to institutional
self-archiving mandates more probable rather than less probable;
(6) because it misses the opportunity for a convergent and coordinated
joint transition to universal OA, with the help of research funders
and the providers of all research, in all disciplines, funded and
unfunded: the institutions.
And all completely needlessly. For mandating direct central deposit
entails no functional gain whatsoever over mandating institutional
deposit and central harvesting, only needless loss, both in potential
OA and in OA mandate growth, for the 6 reasons stated above (all, and
more, stated explicitly in the links cited and in previous postings).
And now I shall stop replying to Jean-Claude's postings which, as has
happened before, have waxed more and more shrill and ad hominem with
each iteration:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4747.html
Stevan Harnad
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude
<jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> 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 - 02:41:26 BST