On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Neil Beagrie wrote:
> the final version of the report by Maggie Jones from the e-journal
> archiving study is now available in pdf on the jisc website at
>>http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ejournalsfinal.pdf
This report has useful information for those who are interested in
licensed toll-access journal content and in the preservation (archiving)
of such licensed content, but it unfortunately misunderstands the relation
between the archiving concerns for such licensed (i.e., bought-in) toll-access
content and the concerns and purposes of the self-archiving of researchers'
own institutional research output (mostly also published in toll-access journals).
The report is right that this is a *parallel* form of archiving, but it
is in error about what is actually paralleling what! The relevant passages
are:
> "E-Print Repositories: The rapid escalation of e-print repositories has
> been regarded by some of its champions as a potential replacement
> for more traditional scholarly communication provided by licensed
> e-journals."
All kinds of things have no doubt been said by all kinds of champions and
challengers, but the standpoint of the Budapest Open Access Initiative
(BOAI) on self-archiving is quite clear: Self-archiving in eprint archives
is an alternative way of providing access -- *open access* -- to the
*very same articles*, i.e., the articles that authors have published
in toll-access journals. Hence eprint archives are not *replacements*
(substitutes) for the journals but *supplements* to them, intended to
allow authors to provide access to their articles for all those would-be
users whose institutions cannot afford the tolls for the toll-access
version.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtmlhttp://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
> "The emphasis to date has been on encouraging scholars to
> deposit content into the archives, rather than on preservation
> requirements. Indeed some proponents of e-print repositories argue
> against considering preservation requirements at this stage as being
> largely irrelevant for the time being and something which can be
> considered later (if at all)."
Once it is at last understood that the self-archived versions in
the eprint archives are supplements to rather than substitutes for the
toll-access versions, it will perhaps also be at last understood that the
primary preservation burden is not on those supplements, self-provided only
to maximise access and impact. The primary preservation burden is on
the proprietary toll-access versions. Those are the ones that publishers
sell and those are the ones that libraries buy; and as long as that buying and
selling goes on, those are also the parties responsible for the permanence
of the proprietary product, *not* the authors (and their institutions),
who are only providing a supplementary version in order to provide access
for those would-be users who cannot afford the proprietary version.
Yes, the self-archivers are interested in providing open-access to
their work not only today, but tomorrow, and after-tomorrow. And they
are doing so. The work self-archived in the Physics Arxiv in 1991,
for example, is still alive and well, fully useable and used, in 2003,
thank you very much, and was even successfully retro-fitted for
OAI-compliance in 1999. And all this self-archived work will continue
to be kept openly accessible by researchers and their institutions. And
some day, possibly, if and when the access-tolls are no longer being paid
at all, and all archiving is offloaded on the network of OAI-compliant
eprint archives, *then* the eprint archives can take over the primary
burden of archiving too.
But for now, they are only a parallel form of *access-provision* to the
very same literature, and they are not the ones that have, or should
worry about, the primary preservation burden. Nor are they alternatives
to the journals; they are just alternative forms of access. If/when
the "golden" option prevails, and all journals convert to open-access,
covering costs from author/institution submission fees, per paper, instead
of reader/institution toll-access fees, per journal, then these archives
will be poised to assume the preservation burden. But at no time will
this mean that eprint archives "replace" journals: It merely means that
open-access journals will become essentially peer-review service providers
and certifiers rather than the providers of a paper or online text.
Short form: Access-provision will be come unbundled from publication
(for the refereed research literature). Publication will mean have been
accepted as meeting the established peer-review quality standards of a
journals. Authors provide the research and the text. The journal provides
the peer-review (and editing) service. And the network of OAI-interoperable
institutional eprint archives provide the access.
> "As these repositories will be expected to contain valuable scholarly
> resources, it is to be hoped that their preservation will be taken
> into consideration and a related JISC funded study is currently
> investigating this [24]."
It is no doubt the needless proliferation of synonyms, near-synonyms, and euphemisms
that keeps us so confused about the purposes of eprint archives. Can I propose that we
reserve the term "institutional repository" for all the *other* things an institution
may wish to archive, manage and preserve: bought-in toll-access digital content,
institutional input *other* than peer-reviewed articles (pre- and post-peer-review), such
as courseware, etc., and any e-publishing ventures institutions may be contemplating to
increase their revenue streams.
That way we can reserve "eprint archives" for the specific content targeted by the BOAI,
namely, institutional refereed-research output, self-archived in order to maximize its
impact by maximizing access to it.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0045.gif
> "In the meantime, the immediate concern of libraries is whether they
> can rely on continued access to material they have paid for through
> licences. While there will be overlapping issues to be addressed in
> preserving licensed e-journals and e-prints, at this stage they need
> to be considered separately. The development of e-print repositories
> should be watched with interest and offer the potential for more
> rapid access to scholarly research. However, this study recommends
> they should not be regarded as a complete substitute for licensed
> e-journals but as a parallel development."
As long as the *nature* of this parallelism is clearly understood, the above seems like a
very reasonable recommendation!
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: Complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.htmlhttp://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Posted discussion to: september98-forum at amsci-forum.amsci.org
Dual Open-Access Strategy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtmlhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htmhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gifhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0021.gifhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gifhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif
