The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty

Harnad, Stevan (2007) Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty s.n.

Record type: Monograph (Project Report)

Abstract

Cornell University's Institutional Repository (IR) so far houses only a very small percentage of its own annual research output, even though this output is the target content for Open Access (OA) IRs. As such, Cornell's IR is no different from all other IRs worldwide except those that have already adopted a "Green OA" deposit mandate. Alma Swan's international, multidisciplinary surveys have found that most researchers report they will not deposit without a mandate but will comply willingly if deposit is mandated by their institutions and/or their funders. Arthur Sale's comparative analyses of mandated and unmandated IRs have confirmed this in actual practise. Cornell's IR too has confirmed this with high deposit rates for the few subcollections that are mandated. IRs with Green OA mandates approach 100% OA within about 2 years. The worldwide baseline for unmandated self-archiving is about 15%. Davis & Connolly's 2007 D-Lib article takes no cognizance of this prior published information. It surveys a sample of Cornell researchers for their attitudes to self-archiving and finds the usual series of uninformed misunderstandings, already long-catalogued and answered in published FAQs. The article then draws some incorrect conclusions derived entirely from incorrect assumptions it first makes, among them the following: (1) The purpose of Green OA self-archiving is to compete with journals? (No, the purpose is to supplement subscription access by depositing the author's final draft online, free for all users who cannot access the subscription-based version.) (2) IRs should instead store the "grey literature"? (No, OA's target content is peer-reviewed research.) (3) IRs are for preservation? (No, they are for research access-provision.) (4) Some disciplines may not benefit from Green OA self-archiving? (The only disciplines that would not benefit would be those that do not benefit from maximizing the usage and impact of their peer-reviewed journal article output.) The only thing Cornell needs to do if it wants its IR filled with Cornell's own research output is to mandate it.

HTML arch-cornell.html - Other
Download (31kB)

More information

Published date: May 2007
Additional Information: Commentary On: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html
Keywords: open access, self-archiving, mandates, Institutional Repositories, research policy, Cornell University
Organisations: Web & Internet Science

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 263967
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/263967
PURE UUID: a9003424-fe33-4b6e-bf0f-3eee32d7514a

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 04 May 2007
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 07:40

Export record

Contributors

Author: Stevan Harnad

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×