[Open-access] [open-science] OKF at Open Repositories 2014

Emanuil Tolev emanuil at cottagelabs.com
Fri Dec 6 16:13:19 UTC 2013

So far we have

1/ basic infrastructure with metadata, original files and indexed full text
2/ (the right) usage stats

http://Altrmetric.com and http://Impactstory.org strike me as nice bits of
kits which already do all the "look your article was downloaded > 100
times" stuff, so #1 could be an additional data source for these services.
Obviously they could go away at any point, but that's hardly a concern
right now considering we haven't managed #1 in the UK yet.

Another thing...

On 6 December 2013 15:07, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:

> Salut Laurent,
> You touch upon a very serious point. You should indeed consider
> researchers' egos more, as you sort of admit. After all, the issue is not
> so much technological (in spite of appearances) as it is
> psycho-sociological. Egos are important in what is, in many respects, the
> academic 'ego-system'.

> The system hangs together with recognition, credits, acknowledgement and
> the like.

This seems incontrovertibly true. But why does that work against a
centralised system of access / easier access in other forms though?

The thing being available doesn't mean people won't give credit. On the
contrary, it means more people will see it, more will use it, and more will
give credit. Take the opposite: make it available only in a closed-access
journal and no PDF anywhere .. and others will still be able to plagiarise
or not cite + even less people will actually see / cite the article. Maybe
I need to talk to somebody with more nuanced understanding of this bit,
since I hope this is not the ol' piracy argument all over, but with
recognition substituted for money.


> The highest barriers and strongest impediments are not technical. Where
> they are, they can be remedied comparatively easily. The (sub)cultural
> barriers don't get enough attention, I think (maybe I don't move in the
> right circles), and those are the most important to break down. We need
> more psychologists in the discussion to drive it forwards, perhaps.
> Bon ouiquainde!
> Best,
> Jan
> On 6 Dec 2013, at 14:43, Laurent Romary <laurent.romary at inria.fr> wrote:
> For the record, let me defend the “French” model (since there seems to be
> a Liege one):
> - central repository to minimise costs and improve visibility (you’ve all
> hear of HAL, can you name the on at the University of Stirling?)
> - freedom for institution to define their deposit policy (but I am proud
> of the Inria mandate)
> - availability of all content for data mining (OK, you’ll see no CC on the
> current version, but the new (codename V3) version should go CC-BY (of
> course; I just wonder why one would ask…)
> OK. Peter, our PhD repository (tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/<http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/%E2%80%8E>)
> is full of boring stuff in French, but if you’re interested, do index!
> To answer the current argument on repositories. The most important thing
> for me is to ensure that we have a public and sustainable research
> infrastructure (all words are important). I now see colleagues rushing to
> ResearchGate or Acdemia just because they receive nice messages tickling
> their ego and they don’t even notice that their online papers in HAL are
> downloaded 50 times more. OK, it’s maybe our fault that we do not provide
> adequate statistics and that we do not consider researchers’ ego enough.
> Cheers,
> Laurent
> Le 6 déc. 2013 à 08:09, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> a écrit :
> For nearly ten years I have tried to promote the idea of indexing or
> repositories and got nowhere. I wish it were different. As examples:
> * I ran a funded JISC (UK) project on Open Bibliography.I offered to
> explore the indexing of theses (unlike NL it is impossible to find online
> theses in UK other than manually trawling through 200 repos). I presented
> to the ETHOS project but their priority was to digitize the past.They told
> me I would have to seek permission from every individual author.
> * I wrote to Bernard Rentier offering to come to Liege and investigate
> indexing the ORBI repository on a scientific basis. His repsonse was that
> they were taking a staged approach and that [paraphrasing] I should wait a
> few years.
> * After a tweet I thought that LSE was intested and blogged a proposal to
> index it. They weren't actually interested.
> * I wrote several times to the Cambridge Librarian about text-mining. She
> never acknowledged my mails.
> More generally:
> * repo owners are no interested in anyone outside their library doing
> anything with their content. They have a ?10-year (or longer) plan to
> federate them
> * some repo owners (including Liege) deliberately choose CC-NC and refuse
> to change.
> So personally I have become disillusions with conventional repos. The UK
> REF makes it worse as the sole purpose of many repos seems to be to
> accumulate the content on which the university is formally judged.This does
> not have to be Open. The mentality is not a service positively exposing
> content to the world but a bureaucratic management process.
> It may be different in other countries...
> No - trying to index even one UK
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>> Well, sure! I'm not criticising the vision; I'm criticising how far
>> short of that vision the world we live in currently falls!
>> You may find it irrational that an institution wants its faculty's
>> papers openly available only from their IR and nowhere else. People
>> whose job it is to count beans will disagree. Needless to say, I'm on
>> your side, but there's no point in pretending the bean-counters don't
>> exist.
>> -- Mike.
>> On 5 December 2013 23:53, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 6, 2013, 12:45:25 AM, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> They want the world to come to their one
>> >> special magic web-site and read the papers only there. Which is not
>> >> that much more advanced than the position of paywalled publishers.
>> >
>> > Perhaps I'm really hopelessly naive, but this
>> > seems so irrational, it shouldn't take much to
>> > move beyond this argument.
>> >
>> >> The real issues here are much more social than technical. As usual.
>> >
>> > There is no debating that, I guess :-) Which is
>> > why visions are important: visions get people
>> > motivated to be a part in realizing them.
>> > I believe the vision of getting everything in one place,
>> > filtered, sorted and immensely relevant is
>> > powerful!
>> >
>> > Bjoern
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Björn Brembs
>> > ---------------------------------------------
>> > http://brembs.net
>> > Neurogenetics
>> > Universität Regensburg
>> > Germany
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > open-access mailing list
>> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> Laurent Romary
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20131206/01009308/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-access mailing list