From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 00:42:46 -0400

On 2013-04-03, at 9:10 PM, LIBLICENSE  Kathleen Shearer wrote:

I am looking for information about agreements with publishers to
deposit articles directly into institutional repositories.

I know that BioMed Central is doing this for a number of universities.
I have also heard that some universities have negotiated direct
deposit with other publishers, but I don't have any details.

Have you, or do you know of any universities that have negotiated this?
Any information you could send me related to direct deposit agreements
between institutions and publishers would be most appreciated.

*******

Kathleen, I don't have any data on publisher agreements on proxy deposit
into institutional repositories,  but I can tell you it's an extremely bad idea,
for a number of reasons:

1. The only sure way to achieve 100% open access is to have a rational,
systematically verifiable system of deposit and monitoring.

2. Instititions are the providers of all research output, whether published in
OA journals or subscription journals.

3. Spontaneous, unmandated OA self-archiving by authors is growing much
too slowly.

4. The only way to accelerate OA to 100% is for authors' institiutions and
funders to mandate OA self-archiving.

5. Institutions are the only ones in a position to systematically monitor and
ensure OA mandate compliance, such that all of their research output is
self-archived in their institutional repository.

6. If some deposits are institutional and some are institution-external
(central), and some deposits are done by authors and some by publishers,
it makes it impossible or extremely complicated to systematically monitor
and ensure that all research output is deposited.

7. Self-archiving in the institutional repository immediately upon publication
hence has to be made a mandatory part of the standard research work-flow
for all institutional researchers (just a few extra keystrokes per paper
upon acceptance for publication). (Even librarian proxy deposit is not a
good idea.)

8. Instead allowing or encouraging publishers to do the deposit --
either paid OA
publishers, or subscription publishers after their self-imposed embargoes
have elapsed -- takes the control of OA provision out of the hands of authors
and institutions, and leaves it in the hands of publishers.

Hence I suggest it is a much, much more effective and far-sighted
strategy for institutions
to adopt effective, systematic, verifiable institutional OA
self-archiving mandates (reinforced
by funder mandates) than to be drawn into any side-deals with
publishers, whether OA
publishers or subscription publishers. To do so is a Torjan Horse of a
Faustian Bargain
(take your pick of metaphors!).

Stevan Harnad