Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

For the full hyperlinked text of this critique, see:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/219-guid.html

     SUMMARY: 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.

End of SUMMARY.

For the full hyperlinked text of this critique, see:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/219-guid.html

Stevan Harnad