My post last week about citation rates of mandated vs. self-selected Open Access resulted in an interesting discussion thanks to some good arguments made by Stevan Harnad. One personal conclusion for me: mandates for self-archiving are not a good idea. I would very much prefer researchers to be highly motivated to self-archive thanks to a repository that is both fulfilling important functions and is fun to use.
What follows is a short list of ideas – many of them obvious and some of them already implemented – that for me would make repositories more attractive to use.
Disciplinary and institutional repositories are good places to make primary research data publicly available. Particularly if no standard database exists, such as GenBank for genetic sequence data. Whereas everybody nowadays talks about making research data available, the threshold to do so is often too high for more specialized datasets. An institutional repository is a good place for simple grassroots solution.
PubMed Central and UK PubMed Central are very popular disciplinary repositories for the biomedical and life sciences. Unfortunately I can only submit manuscripts to them if the research was funded by one of a few funders (including the NIH, but none of the major German funders).
Deposition of manuscripts prior to peer review has a long tradition in high-energy physics and related disciplines. Preprint archives probably don’t work in all disciplines, but I have argued before that they could be a very good idea for clinical trials.
While most publishers allow some form of self-archiving by authors (pre-print, post-print and/or publisher’s PDF version), there are unfortunately still exceptions. The American Chemical Society (ACS) has a particularly unwelcoming policy.
An institutional repository can host pre-prints of submitted papers. But the repository could also enable a tighter integration with the journal submission process. The German eSciDoc project uses that approach. Most researchers would probably welcome technical and financial assistance in the submission process.
The institutional bibliography showcases the scholarly work done by a particular researcher, research group, department or institution. Many researchers like to see up-to-date profiles (including publication lists) on their institutional webpages. Bibliographies are also collected for evaluation purposes. We have started to use BibApp at our institution. Repositories can facilitate full-text access to PhD theses and other publications in the bibliography.
Regular readers of this blog know about my involvement in the Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative. All scholarly contributions, including repository content, should be unambiguously connected to their creators as this will greatly facilitate the discovery process. I look forward to ORCID support in repository software such as DSpace and EPrints.
Please keep it simple: citations, links and references
In my last post I wrote about the importance of keeping things simple in scholarly publishing, today I want to go into more detail with one example: citations in scholarly documents.LEGO scientists discuss how they can cite their dataCitations are an essential part of scholarly documents, ...
How readers can support the Front Matter blog
The Front Matter blog launched last week and while the content is currently only written by me, I hope this will change in the coming months to include one-time guest posts and regular writers. One challenge is to figure out how to finance the blog in the long run. ...
Why there is no iTunes for science papers
The iTunes Store was opened by Apple in 2003 to sell digital music and other digital assets. Since 2009 music purchased in the iTunes store is free of Digital Rights Management (DRM). Apple became the largest music vendor worldwide in 2010, ...