Here is a brief note from a discussion list explaining why institutional archiving is the best option and why funders and institutions should mandate such archiving. Hope you find this interesting and useful in the Indian context. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote:

While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of retrieval that other forms of archiving can provide, including some form of central archiving.

From the evidence we looked at - existing archives - it was clear to us

While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of retrieval that other forms of archiving can provide, including some form of central archiving. Ease-of-retrieval advantages are no more inherent in centralised archives

From the evidence we looked at - existing archives - it was clear to us that even when archives are available there is still precious little

Ease-of-retrieval advantages are no more inherent in centralised archives than in any other type of open archive. Ease of retrieval is dependent upon the quality of article metadata, upon the functionality of the search engine used, and upon the retrieval skills of the inquirer (especially if fulltext is searched), and all of these are irrespective of where articles are archived. Our recent study, carried out in partnership with the Universities of Loughborough and Cranfield on behalf of JISC, produced a recommended model for the delivery, management and access of eprints (both pre- and post-prints)in UK further and higher education communities. We deliberated on the relative merits of central versus institutional archiving and came down firmly on the side of the latter. The reasons for this were several - both technical and cultural - and are set out in detail in our full report, which will be published by JISC within the few days [Swan,A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., O'Brien, A., Oppenheim, C., Hardy, R., and Rowland, F (2004) Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education]. (www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/E-prints_delivery_model.pdf) Here is a quote from the executive summary of our report: "This study identified three models for open access provision in the UK .... In considering the relative merits of these models, we addressed not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved, since without this content provision there can be no effective e-print delivery service (for users). For technical and cultural reasons, this study recommends that the centralised model should not be adopted for the proposed UK service. This would have been the costliest option and it would have omitted the growing body of content in distributed institutional, subject-based, and open-access journal archives. Moreover, the central archiving approach is the 'wrong way round' with respect to e-print provision since for reasons of academic and institutional culture and so long as effective measures are implemented, individual institution-based e-print archives are far more likely to fill (and fill quickly) than centralised archives, because institutions and researchers share a vested interested in the impact of their research output, and because institutions are in a position to mandate and monitor compliance, a position not enjoyed by centralised archives." One of the critical aspects of our decision was that any model for delivering eprints must operate in, and help to create, the arena most likely to provide the maximum amount of eprint material to deliver. Two things (only) have a bearing on this - archives being available for authors to use, and authors actually archiving their articles. that even when archives are available there is still precious little peer-reviewed material being deposited, ergo it is author behaviour that is at the very root of the matter. How may authors be 'encouraged' to self-archive? The evidence shows that whilst a carrot approach produces some success, 'encouragement' would best take the form of a stick - by someone, somewhere, mandating self-archiving. Why authors need such a mandate can be debated at length by those with the inclination for such things. The fact is that when there is a mandate by some authority that has clout, authors will comply. There are few examples of such mandates in operation as yet (though where they exist, they are working), but plenty of promise for those to come. KPL's recent, separate, study on open access publishing (also commissioned by JISC) produced clear evidence that authors have, in general and in principle, no objection to self-archiving and will comply with a mandate to do so from their employer or research funder. Our findings were that 77% of authors would comply with such a mandate. Only 3% said they would NOT comply. [Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Report of the JISC/OSI journal authors survey. pp 1-76. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf; Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17 (3), 219-224. www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/Authors_and_open_access_publishi ng.pdf The recent government-level recommendations in the US and the UK on mandating self-archiving are therefore perfectly on target to address the issue most critical to open access provision. Scholars will self-archive if told to do so. Employers and research funders have the authority to do the telling, but they tell authors to do what, and which authors? Funders can only tell their grantees, but have the choice of telling them to deposit their articles in the funder's own archive if there is one, in some other centralised archive, or in the researcher's own institutional archive, or all of these. Employers can do all these too, but since they not only have shared goals with their researchers in respect of dissemination of research findings, but also see additional value in, and uses for, the content of an institutional archive, they are very likely to be eager to see it maximally populated and will insist on authors depositing there, at the very least. Moreover, they can mandate self-archiving across the board, including researchers who are not supported by external funding (a large number in many subject areas), and in EVERY scholarly discipline. This is a far more effective a route to comprehensive eprint provision than relying on funder mandates alone, and is much more likely to provide eprints in ALL disciplines relatively quickly than relying on the eventual establishment of centralised archives in all subject areas. Our conclusion was, then, that this scenario is the one most likely to provide the maximum level of archived content, a major plank of any model for the provision of eprints nationwide in the UK. Our model was devised accordingly and would be equally appropriate anywhere else in the world. Alma Swan FW: [BOAI] Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving (fwd) Here is a brief note from a discussion list explaining why institutional archiving is the best option and why funders and institutions should mandate such archiving. Hope you find this interesting and useful in the Indian context. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote: than in any other type of open archive. Ease of retrieval is dependent upon the quality of article metadata, upon the functionality of the search engine used, and upon the retrieval skills of the inquirer (especially if fulltext is searched), and all of these are irrespective of where articles are archived. Our recent study, carried out in partnership with the Universities of Loughborough and Cranfield on behalf of JISC, produced a recommended model for the delivery, management and access of eprints (both pre- and post-prints)in UK further and higher education communities. We deliberated on the relative merits of central versus institutional archiving and came down firmly on the side of the latter. The reasons for this were several - both technical and cultural - and are set out in detail in our full report, which will be published by JISC within the few days [Swan,A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., O'Brien, A., Oppenheim, C., Hardy, R., and Rowland, F (2004) Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education]. (www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/E-prints_delivery_model.pdf) Here is a quote from the executive summary of our report: "This study identified three models for open access provision in the UK .... In considering the relative merits of these models, we addressed not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved, since without this content provision there can be no effective e-print delivery service (for users). For technical and cultural reasons, this study recommends that the centralised model should not be adopted for the proposed UK service. This would have been the costliest option and it would have omitted the growing body of content in distributed institutional, subject-based, and open-access journal archives. Moreover, the central archiving approach is the 'wrong way round' with respect to e-print provision since for reasons of academic and institutional culture and so long as effective measures are implemented, individual institution-based e-print archives are far more likely to fill (and fill quickly) than centralised archives, because institutions and researchers share a vested interested in the impact of their research output, and because institutions are in a position to mandate and monitor compliance, a position not enjoyed by centralised archives." One of the critical aspects of our decision was that any model for delivering eprints must operate in, and help to create, the arena most likely to provide the maximum amount of eprint material to deliver. Two things (only) have a bearing on this - archives being available for authors to use, and authors actually archiving their articles. peer-reviewed material being deposited, ergo it is author behaviour that is at the very root of the matter.  How may authors be 'encouraged' to self-archive? The evidence shows that whilst a carrot approach produces some success, 'encouragement' would best take the form of a stick - by someone, somewhere, mandating self-archiving. Why authors need such a mandate can be debated at length by those with the inclination for such things. The fact is that when there is a mandate by some authority that has clout, authors will comply. There are few examples of such mandates in operation as yet (though where they exist, they are working), but plenty of promise for those to come. KPL's recent, separate, study on open access publishing (also commissioned by JISC) produced clear evidence that authors have, in general and in principle, no objection to self-archiving and will comply with a mandate to do so from their employer or research funder. Our findings were that 77% of authors would comply with such a mandate. Only 3% said they would NOT comply. [Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Report of the JISC/OSI journal authors survey. pp 1-76. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf; http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf; Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17 (3), 219-224. www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/Authors_and_open_access_publishi ng.pdf The recent government-level recommendations in the US and the UK on mandating self-archiving are therefore perfectly on target to address the issue most critical to open access provision. Scholars will self-archive if told to do so. Employers and research funders have the authority to do the telling, but they tell authors to do what, and which authors? Funders can only tell their grantees, but have the choice of telling them to deposit their articles in the funder's own archive if there is one, in some other centralised archive, or in the researcher's own institutional archive, or all of these. Employers can do all these too, but since they not only have shared goals with their researchers in respect of dissemination of research findings, but also see additional value in, and uses for, the content of an institutional archive, they are very likely to be eager to see it maximally populated and will insist on authors depositing there, at the very least. Moreover, they can mandate self-archiving across the board, including researchers who are not supported by external funding (a large number in many subject areas), and in EVERY scholarly discipline. This is a far more effective a route to comprehensive eprint provision than relying on funder mandates alone, and is much more likely to provide eprints in ALL disciplines relatively quickly than relying on the eventual establishment of centralised archives in all subject areas. Our conclusion was, then, that this scenario is the one most likely to provide the maximum level of archived content, a major plank of any model for the provision of eprints nationwide in the UK. Our model was devised accordingly and would be equally appropriate anywhere else in the world. Alma Swan