From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 21:42:16 -0400

On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Sue Gardner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"As repository managers, many of us are having trouble envisioning
getting from where we are currently to what the original OA movement
idealistically proposed. This is due to the practical constraints we
are faced with (such as restrictive publishers’ policies including not
allowing posting of published versions even a decade and more after
publication, lack of ready access to authors’ manuscripts, etc.). The
solutions being offered to move toward the initial goal include
author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE,
and others, which are—from my standpoint as a repository
manager—one-and-all ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to
varying degrees.

"In populating our repository within the varied constraints, and in
offering non-mandated, mediated deposit, at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln we are taking a bottom-up approach to access (from
the author to the reader) and, as Paul Royster has pointed out, it
leaves us in the odd position of actually standing outside the OA
movement as it is defined. We have seen forces gather (led by
publishers and others) that have further galvanized our peripheral
position. From my perspective, these forces intend that the initial
vision of OA will be realized on the backs of the authors themselves
(with author-pays schemes, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts,
etc.).

"Should authors have to bear the brunt of the OA movement? To some
extent, of course, but ultimately that seems counterproductive since
they are the ones who generate the content. As librarians and as the
in-house publishing unit within the library, we work with, and for,
authors daily and we help them get their work out to readers. We
assist with interpretation of permissions, upload the work, and so on.
They create, we facilitate access to their creations.

"In summary, in the discussions that have ensued on the various lists
this past week, I see a disconnect between what I experience on a
daily basis working with the IR and what we say as a community we are
trying to achieve."

Sue Gardner
Scholarly Communications Librarian

*******

Three questions for Nebraska-Lincoln (N-L) Libraries, in order of importance:

(1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal
articles (only) per year is deposited in the N-L Repository?

(Without that figure, there is no way of knowing how well N-L is
doing, compared to other institutional repositories, mandated or
unmandated.)

Simple way to estimate the above (but you have to keep track of both
the publication date and the deposit date): Sample total annual N-L
output from WoS or SCOPUS and then test what percentage of it is
deposited (and when). That can be benchmarked against other university
repositories.

(2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate?

The right mandate — immediate-deposit of all refereed final drafts
immediately upon acceptance for publication — plus the request-copy
Button during any allowable publisher embargo interval — works
(especially if librarians keep mediating during the start-up and if
deposit is designated as the sole means of submitting articles for
performance-review). Try it.

(3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?

They’re opposites… Only one of them is objectively describable as the
"author bearing the brunt” (and that’s having to shell out a lot of
money — not just do a few extra keystrokes -- or else give up
journal-choice).

Stevan Harnad