Home Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) Amsciforum "Point & Counterpoint: The Purpose of Institutional Repositories"Kennison & Shreeves vs. Harnad

"Point & Counterpoint: The Purpose of Institutional Repositories"Kennison & Shreeves vs. Harnad

Amsciforum 2013-09-26

Summary:

The immediate-deposit mandate (Rentier & Thirion 2011) – called the “Liège model,” after the first university to adopt it – works. It raises the deposit rate from the baseline for unmandated deposit (about 20%) to 60% within a year or two, and then it continues to climb toward 100%. The University of Liège immediate-deposit mandate is  complemented by an immediate-deposit mandate by the Belgian funding council, FNRS. This is the mandate model recommended by BOAI-10 as well as HEFCE and BIS in the UK. Immediate-deposit is also a clause in the Harvard/MIT (copyright retention) mandate.

 

All the evidence suggests that there is no point in just continuing to collect other kinds of contents in the hope that they will somehow lead to an OA mandate and compliance. The first and foremost priority of those who seek to fill IRs with their primary intended content should be to work toward the adoption of the Liège model mandate by their institutions as well as their funders and then to implement an effective monitoring system to ensure compliance: Alongside their refereed final drafts, authors should be asked to deposit the dated acceptance letter so as to verify immediate deposit (within, say, six weeks of acceptance). Evidence already suggests that compliance will be timely.

Link:

http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol1/iss4/5/

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » Amsciforum

Tags:

oa.new oa.debates oa.green oa.ir oa.repositories

Date tagged:

09/26/2013, 03:35

Date published:

09/25/2013, 23:35