[A2k] OA2 Scientific knowledge (publication archives)

[Armbruster, Chris]

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

A2K as open access to scientific knowledge is thought to crucially depend o=
n repositories. However, must repositories are struggling to receive schola=
rly content - authors often do not willingly deposit even when it would be =
*easy* to do so and no legal obstacles exist. To help in this situation, we=
 would like to discuss a new distinction among repository types, not just d=
ifferentiating institutional and subject-based repositories, but also resea=
rch repositories and national repository systems. For this purpose we have =
written a working paper that we would like to invite you to respond to.

- Armbruster, Chris and Romary, Laurent, Comparing Repositories Types: Chal=
lenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, =
National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Schol=
arly Communication (November 20, 2009).
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D1506905

After two decades of repository development, some conclusions may be drawn =
as to which type of repository and what kind of service best supports digit=
al scholarly communication, and thus the production of new knowledge.
Four types of publication repository may be distinguished, namely the subje=
ct-based repository, research repository, national repository system and in=
stitutional repository.
Two important shifts in the role of repositories may be noted. With regard =
to content, a well-defined and high quality corpus is essential. This impli=
es that repository services are likely to be most successful when construct=
ed with the user and reader uppermost in mind. With regard to service, high=
 value to specific scholarly communities is essential. This implies that re=
positories are likely to be most useful to scholars when they offer dedicat=
ed services supporting the production of new knowledge.
Along these lines, challenges and barriers to repository development may be=
 identified in three key dimensions: a) identification and deposit of conte=
nt; b) access and use of services; and c) preservation of content and susta=
inability of service. An indicative comparison of challenges and barriers i=
n some major world regions such as Europe, North America and East Asia plus=
 Australia is offered in conclusion.

Best wishes, Chris Armbruster

Other publications and working papers of potential interest:

- Romary, Laurent and Armbruster, Chris, Beyond Institutional Repositories.=
 International Journal of Digital Library Systems 1(1) (forthcoming, 2010).=
 Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D1425692

- Armbruster, Chris, Whose Metrics? On Building Citation, Usage and Access =
Metrics as Information Service for Scholars. Learned Publishing 23(1) (fort=
hcoming, 2010). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D1464706

- Armbruster, Chris, The European Research Conundrum: When Research Organiz=
ations Impede Scientific and Technological Breakthroughs Despite Targets, M=
oney and Policy to Foster These Activities (October 27, 2009). Available at=
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=3D1494534