[Oa-italia] [Fwd: [GOAL] PMC & UKPMC Should Harvest From Institutional Repositories]

[Elena Giglia]

Giro alla lista perche' si tratta di una questione cruciale: la
visibilita' degli IRs da PubMed.
Ne avevo parlato tempo fa con Alma Swan, poi si e' messo di mezzo il RWA
(e da noi la VQR!) e non se ne e' fatto nulla.
Forse urgerebbe una posizione condivisa, una richiesta comune perche' PMC
faccia harvesting anche dagli IRs e ci sia visibilita' diretta da PubMed
sotto forma di author's manuscript.
Cordialmente
eg

--
dott.ssa Elena Giglia
Responsabile Progetti Open Access
Sistema Bibliotecario di Ateneo
Università degli Studi di Torino
via Verdi, 8
10124 Torino
011.6705923
Pubblicazioni e presentazioni in Open Access su E-LIS:
http://tinyurl.com/6gbgaj2
___________
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect
them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow
connect in your future [S.Jobs]


-------------------------- Messaggio originale ---------------------------
Oggetto: [GOAL]  PMC & UKPMC Should Harvest From Institutional
Repositories Da:      "Stevan Harnad" <harnad a ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Data:    Gio, 12 Aprile 2012, 1:05 pm
A:       "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal a eprints.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2012-04-12, at 5:44 AM, Steve Hitchcock wrote:

> Do we know why Pubmed does not apparently link to papers in IRs? Is this
Pubmed policy, or is there a technical reason?
>
> Stephen Curry: PubMed, the first port of call for anyone searching the
biomedical literature, frequently links to publisher’s site but never to
institutional repositories
> http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/03/18/elsevier-the-research-works-act-and-open-access-where-to-now/

PubMed & PubMed Central are wonderful resources, but not nearly
as resourceful or wonderful as they easily could be.

(1) PMC & UKPMC should of course be harvesting or linking
institutional repository (IR) versions of papers, not just
PMC/UKPMC-deposited and publisher-hosted papers.

(2) Funders should be mandating IR deposit and PMC harvesting
rather than direct PMC deposit. By thus making funder mandates
and institutional mandates convergent and collaborative instead
of divergent and competitive, this will motivate and facilitate adoption 
and compliance with institutional mandates: institutions are the universal
 providers of all research output, funded and unfunded.

(3) IRs should mandate immediate deposit irrespective of publisher
 OA policy: If authors wish to honor publisher OA embargoes, they
can set access to the deposit as Closed Access during the embargo  and
rely on providing almost-OA via the IR's email eprint request button

(4) Funder mandates should require deposit by the fundee -- the one  bound
by the mandate -- rather than by the publisher, who is not
bound by the mandate, and indeed in conflict of interest with it.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/876-.html

(5) Publishers (partly to protect from rival publisher free-loading, 
partly to discourage funder mandates, and partly out of simple
misunderstanding of network capability) are much more likely
to endorse immediate institutional self-archiving than
institution-external  deposit. This yet another reason funders should
mandate institutional  deposit and metadata harvesting instead of direct
institution-external deposit.

Stevan Harnad


_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL a eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal