[A2k] Sustainable public access to scientific knowledge

[Armbruster, Chris]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Dear colleagues,

over the past twelve months open access to scientific knowledge has been pr=
ogressing in leaps and bounds. Principally, there is now a commitment of re=
search funders, prestigious US universities and European national research =
academies to OA. Yet, an infrastructure that sustains this ambition has yet=
 to be built. Laurent Romary and I argue that not all possible scenarios wi=
ll work out. In particular, we are skeptical of a solution whereby content =
is collected institution by institution, not just because of the duplicatio=
n of effort, but also, and principally, because of the lack of functionalit=
y of this solution and its low value to active researchers. We argue that a=
 sustainable solution will only be one that is adopted and used by those pr=
oducing knowledge.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D1425692

Abstract
The current system of so-called institutional repositories, even if it has =
been a sensible response at an earlier stage, may not answer the needs of t=
he scholarly community, scientific communication and accompanied stakeholde=
rs in a sustainable way. However, having a robust repository infrastructure=
 is essential to academic work. Yet, current institutional solutions, even =
when networked in a country or across Europe, have largely failed to delive=
r. Consequently, a new path for a more robust infrastructure and larger rep=
ositories is explored to create superior services that support the academy.=
 A future organisation of publication repositories is advocated that is bas=
ed upon macroscopic academic settings providing a critical mass of interest=
 as well as organisational coherence. Such a macro-unit may be geographical=
 (a coherent national scheme), institutional (a large research organisation=
 or a consortium thereof) or thematic (a specific research field organising=
 itself in the domain of publication repositories).
The argument proceeds as follows: firstly, while institutional open access =
mandates have brought some content into open access, the important mandates=
 are those of the funders and these are best supported by a single infrastr=
ucture and large repositories, which incidentally enhances the value of the=
 collection (while a transfer to institutional repositories would diminish =
the value). Secondly, we compare and contrast a system based on central res=
earch publication repositories with the notion of a network of institutiona=
l repositories to illustrate that across central dimensions of any reposito=
ry solution the institutional model is more cumbersome and less likely to a=
chieve a high level of service. Next, three key functions of publication re=
positories are reconsidered, namely a) the fast and wide dissemination of r=
esults; b) the preservation of the record; and c) digital curation for diss=
emination and preservation. Fourth, repositories and their ecologies are ex=
plored with the overriding aim of enhancing content and enhancing usage. Fi=
fth, a target scheme is sketched, including some examples. In closing, a lo=
ok at the evolutionary road ahead is offered.


http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D1425692

Best regards,

Chris Armbruster
Executive Director, Research Network 1989
http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/

Publications and working papers available in Open Access
http://ssrn.com/author=3D434782