From: "Hutchinson, Alvin" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:40:52 +0000

I agree with what Rebecca says and would only add that at my
institution, if librarians don't mediate repository ingest they simply
won't happen.

The common experience of repository managers over the years is that
following acceptance of a paper, scholars are too busy to think about
anything besides working on the next grant and moving on to the next
project.

Alvin Hutchinson
Smithsonian Libraries


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rebecca Kennison <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:37:35 -0400

Stevan,

Since you don't actually run a repository and need to deal with the
legalities of content in one, I understand how you might be dismissive
of the preliminary work we might take to determine "is it legal?" When
you're faced with the threat of a lawsuit and then need to involve
your institution's general counsel or when you must sort out what the
laws of a particular country may be -- did you know that in Germany
the mere act of submitting an article or conference proceeding
constitutes perpetual transfer of the copyright to the publisher and
that there is no requirement that the author ever sign a copyright
transfer agreement? -- that can take time. Do you faculty really want
to be engaged and involved in that laborious work to ensure you only
give repositories what is legal, or do you want to leave that
detective work to others? If the former, then please do that legwork
ahead of deposit and don't submit to repositories work that is
potentially subject to takedown notices. If the latter, then have a
little patience while someone else does the research for you. But
please don't act like legalities don't matter. Your general counsel
may beg to differ -- and the only protection a repository manager can
offer his/her institution is the due diligence he/she has done ahead
of time to assure adherence to repository policies. If an author wants
no delay in deposit, that author should explicitly retain his/her
rights to deposit by ensuring all agreements he/she signs explicitly
allow deposit in a repository -- and he/she should let the repository
know that's the case upon deposit. It's then clear sailing from there.
Otherwise ... not so much.

Best,
Rebecca Kennison

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:35:37 -0400
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out
> > of the way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic
> > meta-data and full text in the repository. At the University of
> > Reading, where I was involved in early developments around the IR
> > but left the University before the final deposit mandate (*) was
> > adopted and the process decided on, they have librarians acting as a
> > roadblock in getting material uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper
> > published in an electronic proceedings at a conference was refused
> > permission to be placed in the repository, for example, while there
> > is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming visible,
> > while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value
> > and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications.
> >
> > (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not
> > sure why, butthey insist on calling it a "policy". If one reads this
> > policy, it's a mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University
> > with an overly strong management team and a mangerialist approach,
> > this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and a mandate a mandate,
> > seems odd. Perhaps it's that this policy came from a bottom up
> > development and not a senior management idea so they're unwilling to give it a strong name.
> >
> > Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
> > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and Deputy
> > Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/
>
>
> Andrew is so right.
>
> We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for
> obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and
> frustrating (for the author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable?
> is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right
> away. And now ECS has "fast lane" exception in the university
> repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless
> roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.
>
> Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please,
> please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that
> this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be
> done after the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has
> already been made immediately OA (by the software). Please don't add
> to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding
> gratuitous ones of your own.
>
> Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly,
> without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to
> vet their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly
> afterward.
>
> P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before.
>
> Dixit
>
> Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old
> battles, on all sides...

------------------------------