Fwd: Deposit without editor or quality checking

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:01:31 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

From: Hugh Glaser <hg_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: 24 septembre 2009 08:38:15 GMT-04:00
To: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK" <JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Deposit without editor or quality checking

As one of the authors_at_ecs Stevan is talking about, I can say I think it is
hard to underestimate the importance of this as a means of satisfying

While there is an editing phase, it is "their" repository.
Without an editing phase it is "my" repository.

It provides a service for me: I put things there so that I can find them
later; I don't bother with my own publication pages anymore; when I give a
seminar I put the slides there before the seminar and then put the link to
the exact link archive item on the slides; I care much more about what is in
the repository, because I have responsibility... I could go on to use words
like "empowerment", but perhaps that's enough.

The feeling of difference is enormous: instead of it being something that is
an extra imposition that costs me time, it is much clearer it is a useful
service that my organisation is providing for me, and becomes part of my
working structure.

By the way, as Stevan says, if checking is required then checking afterwards
is much the best way, and will then be appreciated by the users, rather than
considered as law enforcement.

Hugh Glaser,  Reader
              Dependable Systems & Software Engineering
              School of Electronics and Computer Science,
              University of Southampton,
              Southampton SO17 1BJ
Work: +44 (0)23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3045
Mobile: +44 (0)75 9533 4155, Home: +44 (0)23 8061 5652

On 24/09/2009 13:18, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:

p On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, J.W.T.Smith wrote:

We are coming under pressure to speed up the addition of new items to our
repository by academics. We use the EPrints package which has a reviewing
stage which means items are deposited in a review area and don't become
visible in the public repository until they have been checked by an editor.
It is being proposed that all depositors be allowed to move items into the
public repository with any editing being done later.

Does anyone already do this, i.e., allow direct deposit into the public
repository without any editorial or quality control checking? If so has it
caused any problems?

John Smith, Administrator - Kent Academic Repository (KAR) University of

Yes, direct deposit without a checking phase is an infinitely better
policy. It is simpler, more satisfying to authors, and avoids needless

If you want to have a checking phase, it can be done in the background,
AFTER the item is deposited and already OA to all, and if there are any
problems, they can be conveyed to the author. But meanwhile the deposit
is immediately OA. (Users may also occasionally report problems with a
deposit, and that too can be conveyed to the author when the time comes.)

At Southampton, we started with a checking buffer, but we very soon
phased it out as an unnecessary and inefficient disincentive to authors.

The EPrints software is designed so you can easily configure it to
omit the checking phase.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu Sep 24 2009 - 19:49:49 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:56 GMT