DASER II Summit: Institutional Repositories and Open Access

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

            ** Apologies for multiple posting **

        DASER-2's theme is:
        Open Access and Institutional Repositories
        http://www.daser.org/program.html
        University of Maryland, College Park MD
        2-4 December 2005

Below is the summary of my own presentation:

    Institutional Repository (IR) Models: 
    What Works (for Open Access, OA) and What Doesn't

        Stevan Harnad
        Canada Research Chair
        Universit� de Qu�bec � Montr�al
        and
        University of Southampton, UK

    SUMMARY: Born under the influence of the Open Access (OA) movement,
    Institutional Repositories (IRs) for digital content are now all
    the rage; but whether or not they work depends on their raison
    d'etre. There are many things one can do with an IR. One can use
    it for content management, preservation, internal data-sharing,
    record-keeping; the content itself can be anything digital, whether
    courseware, "gray literature," multimedia, in-house publishing, or
    even bought-in 3rd-party content. None of this has anything whatsoever
    to do with OA, however. OA is about maximizing accessibility to
    institutional peer-reviewed research output in order to maximize its
    research impact (25%-250% of it lost if non-OA), thereby maximizing
    institutional research productivity and progress (and prestige and
    research revenue). OA content in IRs is so far very low (averaging
    less than 15% of annual research output) -- partly because OA has
    been eclipsed by the many other items on the IR wish-list, partly
    because even where it is the only item, wishing is not enough:
    not if librarians wish it, not even if researchers wish it. The
    two international UK JISC surveys have shown clearly exactly what
    is needed to fill IRs with their annual OA content: An extension of
    institutions' and research funders' "publish or perish" mandate to:
    "publish but also self-archive in your IR". The 5 institutions that
    so far have such a mandate (CERN, U. Southampton ECS, U. Minho,
    Queensland U. Tech, and U. Zurich) are well on their way to 100%
    OA. After a crashing failure by NIH to mandate immediate OA
    self-archiving, and a halting half-step by the Wellcome Trust
    (6-month embargo), Research Councils UK (RCUK) looks poised to do
    the right thing at last, and once it does, the rest of the world's
    research funders and institutions will follow suit. The race is
    now to the swift, the battle to the strong, for the 25%-250% OA
    impact advantage is partly a competitive advantage.

JISC Surveys: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11005/
OA Impact Advantage: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm
Institutional Policies: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
Institutional Archives: http://archives.eprints.org/ (offline because of fire)
RCUK Policy Proposal: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp
Prior AmSci Threads:
    "EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?" (started Feb 2003)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2671.html
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2838.html
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2855.html
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3211.html
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3598.html
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4516.html

Stevan Harnad