tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post282627707929283745..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Interview with Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director of the Confederation of Open Access RepositoriesRichard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-80112278202055763522014-05-19T12:48:41.678+00:002014-05-19T12:48:41.678+00:00Thank you for this further response
Stuart.
You...Thank you for this further response <br />Stuart. <br /><br />You do not say why the DASH repository does not have a Request Copy Button.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-31679323858955026192014-05-12T19:48:42.606+00:002014-05-12T19:48:42.606+00:00I apologize for my overstrong language (“grave”, “...I apologize for my overstrong language (“grave”, “fixating”). It’s so hard to get tone right in comment threads.<br /><br />We do refer to DASH as a “central, open-access repository of research by members of the Harvard community”, and I think it is just that. Peter Suber’s take on our use of the phrase “open-access repository” is trenchant I think: <br /><br />“We call something a ‘bookstore’ even if it also sells magazines and greeting cards. We call something a ‘grocery store’ even if it also sells spatulas and pot holders. We call something a ‘drama’ even if it includes some comedy, and vice versa. <br /><br />“An ‘OA repository’ may have some dark content without contradiction. The ‘OA’ in the name designates the primary purpose of the repository, not the exclusive purpose, just as with ‘book’ in ‘bookstore’ and so on.<br /><br />“If a fuller description of a bookstore were ‘store for books, magazines, greeting cards, mugs, and pens’, then a fuller description for DASH would be ‘repository for open access and preservation’. It’s fair and commonplace to abbreviate these long descriptions into short names that leave out much of the descriptive nuance. If it’s fair to say ‘bookstore’, then it’s fair to say ‘OA repository’.”<br /><br />By the way, the proportion of dark material in DASH is relatively small, about 10%, and we’re looking into what portion of that might be “brightened”.Stuart Shieberhttp://www.occasionalpamphlet.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-26863555746914067502014-05-10T09:11:46.572+00:002014-05-10T09:11:46.572+00:00@Stuart: I appreciate your taking the time to comm...@Stuart: I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I did not intend to imply that Harvard is guilty of a grave failing, and I do not believe I am fixated. <br /><br />My objective in the Q&As I undertake is to draw out some of the many issues that surround OA. In the case of the comments that you refer to my aim was to air a topic concerning OA repositories that many puzzle over, and seems to me to be something deserving of discussion. As I say, thank you for responding.<br /><br />Harvard describes DASH as a <a href="http://dash.harvard.edu" rel="nofollow">“central, open-access repository of research by members of the Harvard community”</a>. <br /><br />In that context, I made the following points:<br /><br />1. The DASH repository is widely viewed as (and promoted by Harvard as) a poster child of the OA movement.<br /><br />2. From what Kathleen Shearer said I inferred she believes OA repositories should always provide access to the full text (as well as the metadata) of papers they showcase. <br /><br />3. In any case, I think most people expect the full text of papers deposited in an OA repository to be both present and freely available to all.<br /><br />4. Certainly DASH has been criticised for not providing free access to the full text of all the papers it contains (and I linked to one such criticism).<br /><br />5. While the criticism I pointed to dates from several years ago DASH does today still contain details of papers for which it does not provide access to the full text (and I linked to five examples that I found at random).<br /><br />6. Some of these papers do not provide a link to the full text, others provide a link to the publisher’s site, where the reader is asked to pay up to $35 to view them. I suggested that this cannot be described as OA.<br /><br />I understand your point about dark deposits. I believe the standard practice for dealing with such deposits is to provide a <a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" rel="nofollow"> Request Copy Button </a> in the repository so that researchers can automatically request that the author send them a copy. As I indicated, I could not find a Request Copy Button in DASH. Perhaps I missed it?<br /><br />Congratulations on the number of downloads.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-47097113671078749992014-05-09T16:14:50.373+00:002014-05-09T16:14:50.373+00:00Richard Poynder raises with Kathleen Shearer the i...Richard Poynder raises with Kathleen Shearer the issue of “dark” deposits in <a href="http://dash.harvard.edu/" rel="nofollow">Harvard’s DASH repository</a>. He implies that the presence of a subset of articles in which the deposited article is not made available is a grave failing.<br /><br />Ms. Shearer’s response is exactly right: “I’m not sure about the specific case of DASH, but this really speaks to the collection policy of the individual repository.” I’ve explained DASH’s collection policy with respect to dark deposits in some detail in my 2011 post “<a href="http://bit.ly/fK8Oyx" rel="nofollow">The importance of dark deposit</a>”. In a nutshell, part of the role of the repository is an archival one – to collect the research output of the institution as broadly as possible. We therefore don’t turn articles away. But we also don’t distribute articles from DASH when we don’t hold rights to do so or when authors for whatever reason request us not to. (The particularly unrepresentative case of Professor Knoll’s large number of dark deposits is an instance of the latter. We do not, as a matter of principle and policy, unilaterally override the wishes of authors.)<br /><br />I believe our collection policy – to deposit articles into DASH even if we cannot (yet) distribute them by right or author preference – is reasonable, and in fact preferable to policies that disallow dark deposits. I won’t rehearse <a href="http://bit.ly/fK8Oyx" rel="nofollow">the seven reasons why</a>, though I especially commend Reason 5 to the interested. The best evidence that we are doing something right is that the over 17,000 articles in DASH have been downloaded almost 3.2 million times, and at an increasing pace. Fixation on the subset that we avoid distributing in deference to legal or moral rights seems to miss the point.Stuart Shieberhttp://www.occasionalpamphlet.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-12070004906924285472014-05-05T11:35:30.578+00:002014-05-05T11:35:30.578+00:00THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH GREEN OA REPOSITORI...<b>THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH GREEN OA REPOSITORIES THAT EFFECTIVE GREEN OA MANDATES WON'T CURE</b><br /><br />Kathleen Shearer is right that the Green Road is the <em>key</em> -- but effective Green OA mandates are the <em>motor</em>.<br /><br />Repositories are near empty. Repository functionality can always be improved, but no improvement of repository functionality will provide their missing content. That content will only be provided (by the researchers who produce the research) if the researchers' institutions and funders require (mandate) that they provide it, immediately upon acceptance for publication, as a prerequisite for research performance evaluation and funding.<br /><br />There are currently well over 3000 repositories worldwide but fewer than 300 Green OA mandates worldwide, and many of them are weak, ineffective mandates (compare <a href="http://roar.eprints.org" rel="nofollow">ROAR</a> and <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org" rel="nofollow">ROARMAP</a>).<br /><br />What needs to be done on now is (1) for the institutions and funders that have already adopted Green OA mandates to upgrade to what has proved to be the strongest and most effective mandate model (Liège/HEFCE) and (2) for the many remaining institutions and funders adoption have not yet mandated Green OA self-archiving to likewise adopt the Liège/HEFCE model.<br /><br />Until then, COAR’s mission to “enhance the visibility and application of research outputs through a global network of open access digital repositories” will remain unfulfilled and unfulfillable.<br /><br />See:<b><br /><br /><a href="http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031" rel="nofollow">The Liège ORBi model: Mandatory policy without rights retention but linked to assessment processes</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1103-.html" rel="nofollow">HEFCE/REF Adopts Optimal Complement to RCUK OA Mandate</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/" rel="nofollow">The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access</a></b>Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.com