RE: Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty

["Ian Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>]

Davis and Connolly's article is an interesting one and I am sure 
that the views of Cornell researchers that are reported are 
representative of most faculty at most universities.  Stevan 
should not automatically blame ignorance where there is a genuine 
difference of opinion.

I personally fail to understand how Stevan Harnad can continue to 
state that the purpose of IRs "is to supplement subscription 
access" (his point 1) when he himself has admitted that self 
archiving will lead to the demise of subscription journals.  To 
quote: "It is important to state clearly that... it is possible, 
indeed probable, that self-archiving will cause some 
cancellations" (see for example 
http://www.libraryjournal.com/clear/CA6392242.html).

Evidence has emerged that mandated self-archiving will cause 
subscription journals to go out of business (see for example PRC 
Summary paper 2 - www.publishingresearch.org.uk) and ALPSP Survey 
of Librarians on Factors in Journal Cancellation - 
www.alpsp.org).  Surely we would be better to acknowledge the 
reality of the situation so that debate can at least move forward 
with a clear mutual understanding of the consequences of one 
course of action over another.

Ian Russell
Chief Executive, ALPSP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
> l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 18 March 2007 23:49
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty
>
> For the full hyperlinked text of this critique, see:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/219-guid.html
>
>      SUMMARY: Cornell University's Institutional Repository (IR) so
>      far houses only a very small percentage of its own annual research
>      output, even though this output is the target content for Open Access
>      (OA) IRs.  As such, Cornell's IR is no different from all other
>      IRs worldwide except those that have already adopted a "Green OA"
>      deposit mandate.  Alma Swan's international, multidisciplinary
>      surveys have found that most researchers report they will not
>      deposit without a mandate but will comply willingly if deposit is
>      mandated by their institutions and/or their funders. Arthur Sale's
>      comparative analyses of mandated and unmandated IRs have confirmed
>      this in actual practise. Cornell's IR too has confirmed this with
>      high deposit rates for the few subcollections that are mandated. IRs
>      with Green OA mandates approach 100% OA within about 2 years. The
>      worldwide baseline for unmandated self-archiving is about 15%.
>          Davis & Connolly's 2007 D-Lib article takes no cognizance of
>      this prior published information. It surveys a sample of Cornell
>      researchers for their attitudes to self-archiving and finds the usual
>      series of uninformed misunderstandings, already long-catalogued and
>      answered in published FAQs. The article then draws some incorrect
>      conclusions derived entirely from incorrect assumptions it first
>      makes, among them the following:
>          (1) The purpose of Green OA self-archiving is to compete with
>      journals? (No, the purpose is to supplement subscription access
>      by depositing the author's final draft online, free for all
>      users who cannot access the subscription-based version.)
>          (2) IRs should instead store the "grey literature"? (No, OA's
>      target content is peer-reviewed research.)
>          (3) IRs are for preservation? (No, they are for research
>      access-provision.)
>          (4) Some disciplines may not benefit from Green OA
>      self-archiving? (The only disciplines that would not benefit
>      would be those that do not benefit from maximizing the usage
>      and impact of their peer-reviewed journal article output.)
>
>      The only thing Cornell needs to do if it wants its IR filled with
>      Cornell's own research output is to mandate it.
>
> End of SUMMARY.
>
> For the full hyperlinked text of this critique, see:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/219-guid.html
>
> Stevan Harnad