Summary: An Indiana University study (on the Institutional Repository of the University of Southampton) by Xia (2008) has tested the hypothesis that physicists who already habitually self-archive in an Open Access (OA) Central Repository (Arxiv) would be more likely to self-archive in their own institution's OA Institutional Repository (IR). The outcome of the study was that the hypothesis is incorrect: If anything, veteran Arxiv self-archivers are more resistant to IR deposit than ordinary nonarchivers, because they neither wish to change their longstanding locus of deposit, nor do they wish to double-deposit.
This outcome is quite natural and to be expected. The solution for this relatively small population of seasoned self-archivers is for their institution-external deposits to be automatically imported back into their IRs using the SWORD protocol (which can also be used to export automatically from IRs to central repositories). There is no need for veteran self-archivers to change their practices or to double-deposit.
It is not the 15% of authors who already self-archive (whether institution-externally or on their own institutional websites) that are the problem for OA: The problem is the 85% who do not yet self-archive. It is in order to set the keystrokes of those nonarchivers in motion at long last -- for their own benefit and that of their employing institutions as well as the tax-paying public that funds their research -- that Green OA self-archiving mandates are now being adopted by their institutions and funders....
...SWORD is not a harvesting protocol; it is a deposit protocol. The party that initiates a SWORD deposit is the party with the material in hand. SWORD offers no way for a repository that wants material from another repository to request it, much less do so in an “automatic” fashion.
For the SWORD-based dual-deposit system Dr. Harnad describes to work, the disciplinary repository would have to arrange for SWORD deposit into every single IR represented by the faculty who deposit there. It would also have to track faculty affiliations, to send deposited materials to the correct IR(s)....
I think there are better ways to solve the problem. Let me suggest a couple.
One is to turn the problem around; let IRs do SWORD deposit to disciplinary repositories, snagging a copy for themselves in passing. IRs and their repo-rats do have incentive to build this, as we create bonus visibility for our faculty thereby, and we can (at least potentially) help with funder mandates, too. All the target repositories have to do is implement SWORD and hook that into whatever safeguards they need to ensure that IRs aren’t feeding them stuff they don’t want.
(If PubMedCentral or arXiv or RePEc or SSRN were to implement SWORD, it would be a gigantic step forward. Please, will someone in the know suggest it to them?) ...
Another potential solution is to look more closely at OAI-ORE instead of SWORD....
I wholeheartedly agree that repositories of all sorts need to talk to each other better....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 1/05/2009 10:55:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
