[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: D-Lib article about Cornell's Institutional Repository

This D-lib report and David's story simply echo the story about 
the OECD's working papers (which is told in full in an article I 
wrote "A Whiter Shade of Pale - how OECD cleared up the mess that 
was its working papers. The Grey Journal Vol 2, Issue 2 (2006)"). 
In the case of the OECD's working papers when authors were 
responsible for publishing them on the web, either via the OECD's 
own site or via a community-run centralised repository (Repec), 
the result was a mess. Not all papers were posted, the numbering 
was often incoherent, links were broken or pointed to the OECD's 
intranet and so on. The article explains how the OECD's 
publishing arm cleared up the mess and put in place a system that 
ensures the papers are properly released online and in a 
sustainable way. My conclusion then, and it's the same now, is 
that to publish successfully you need four basic ingredients: the 
content, an online publishing system, some money ... and someone 
with publishing skills.

Toby Green
Head of Publishing
OECD Publishing
Public Affairs and Communications Directorate
http://www.SourceOECD.org  - our award-winning e-library
http://www.oecd.org/OECDdirect  - our new title alerting service

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Goodman
Sent: 16 March, 2007 12:41 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: D-Lib article about Cornell's Institutional Repository

As part of a recent study, I had occasion to return to the 
faculty web sites at which journal articles in the social 
sciences had been posted. Of 11 papers in politics and economics, 
only 5 were available at their same location 15 months later. 
Five of the other six of them were elsewhere at the university 
web site, but could not be located except by searching for the 
article either through the university's search engine or by a 
general-purpose search--not a single one had links to the new 
location. The 11th was no longer on the university site of the 
first author, but was found posted on the sites of one of the 
other authors.

To me, this indicates the completely unsatisfactory nature of use 
of faculty web sites for access to journal article copies. They 
would only be suitable, if the university took the initiative of 
harvesting them from the original sites once they had been posted 
and putting them in a stable and professional-run repository.

In connection with the findings about IRs, I consider this an 
argument for either university-operated deposit in suitable IRs 
in the first place, or the use of centralized repositories.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S. dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Tananbaum <gtananbaum@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: D-Lib article about Cornell's Institutional Repository
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> This is a very interesting study with nuggets for both poles to
> trumpet. What I find salient is the belief of those interviewed
> that personal, departmental, and lab web pages (not to mention
> subject repositories) provide an adequate forum for the
> dissemination of a researcher's work. The intelligent IR
> implementation will recognize that established pathways exist,
> and that faculty are loathe to disrupt or duplicate them.  If
> libraries value enhanced scholarly communication as a high
> priority (a perspective not generally shared by their faculty,
> according to this survey), then they must do more of the heavy
> lifting to facilitate it.  This means lowering or eliminating
> the already low barriers to repository participation,
> integrating with existing dissemination mechanisms, and
> investing in more cross-walking and less cross-talking.
> Best, Greg
> Greg Tananbaum
> gtananbaum@gmail.com
> (510) 295-7504