Authors: I don’t care where you deposit, just do it

One of the ongoing debates in open access regards the locus of deposit for self-archiving. That is: if researchers are posting a copy of their manuscript to be freely accessible online, where should they post it? The debate is usually between institutional repositories — i.e., that authors should post their manuscripts on the Web site of their host university — and thematic or funder repositories, i.e. sites organized around a certain research topic or discipline, or hosted to capture the output of a particular research funding agency.

The advocates of institutional repositories usually frame themselves as being advocates of decentralization, but this isn’t terribly accurate. A recent blog post by Bernard Rentier, rector of the University of Liège, captures the arguments well:

… If [requiring deposit] is left to large funders such as the European Community, their central [sic] repositories will only contain publications of the research they have funded. From this it is easy to see that researchers will ultimately have to deposit their publications in as many repositories as there are funders supporting their research. …

What is worrisome is the needless double investment in creating two distinct kinds of repositories for direct deposit. This trend seems to rest on the naive notion that, in the Internet era, it is somehow still necessary to deposit things centrally. … Such CRs even run the risk of serving as hosts for only the publications funded by a single funder. IRs guarantee OA webwide for all research output, in all disciplines, from all institutions, regardless of where (or whether) it has been funded.

It is understandable that funders may wish to host a complete collection of the research they have funded, but nowadays that can easily be accomplished by importing it automatically from the more complete collections of the distributed IRs — since institutions are the universal providers of all research output, funded and unfunded …

Besides, the OA philosophy is global. It cannot be reduced to a single continent. Science is universal.

… [Creating more CRs] would generate multiple competing loci of primary deposit for authors …

All research is generated from research institutions: IRs are hence the natural locus for author deposit, providing optimal proximity, convenience and congruence with the mission of the author’s own institution. …

But we might as well say this instead:

If requiring deposit is left to universities, their repositories will only contain publications by their researchers. Since some researchers have multiple institutional affiliations, and since any given publication may be authored by researchers across multiple institutions, it is easy to see that researchers will ultimately have to deposit their publications in as many repositories as there are institutions involved in their research.

This trend seems to rest on the naive notion that, in the Internet era, it is somehow still necessary for researchers to conduct their work solely through the channels of a university.

It is understandable that universities may wish to host a complete collection of the research published by their faculty, but nowadays that can easily be accomplished by importing it automatically from the more complete collections of the distributed Web.

Recall also that universities are not the universal providers of all research output. There will always be independent scholars, as well as publications by authors in government, non-profits and think tanks, and corporations.

The OA philosophy is global. It cannot be reduced to a single university.

To be clear, I am not saying “just put it on the Web”. Appropriate metadata, interoperability, and preservation for long-term access matter; repositories (whether organized around research institutions, research funders, or research topics) provide these. But arguing for the primacy of institutional over funder repositories is little less naive than arguing the opposite. Maximum effectiveness requires coordination by all parties.

Let me offer these policy suggestions for how this might look in practice:

• Institutions: Require that researchers ensure their publication ends up in your IR, wherever they initially deposited it. If they are accustomed to depositing in a funder or thematic repository, they’re responsible for working with the IR manager to ensure their work gets harvested. Better still if the IR allows users to set up automatic harvesting themselves, either for a single publication or for all the author’s future publications, if they don’t want to talk to the IR manager.
• Funders: Require that grantees ensure their publication ends up in your repository, wherever they initially deposited it. If they are accustomed to depositing in an institutional repository, they’re responsible for working with your repository manager to ensure their work gets harvested. Better still if the repository allows users to set up automatic harvesting themselves, either for a single publication or for all the author’s future publications, if they don’t want to talk to the repository manager.

This seems more flexible and accommodating to all preferences. In particular, it’s superior to the suggestion that funders should require authors to deposit in their institution’s repository, because not every institution has an IR. Indeed, not every funded researcher may even have an institution. The ultimate goal is opening all research, regardless of where the authors work or who funded the research.