3 ms·

> Under the bill, grantees would be required to put their works in a state-provided open access repository within a year of publication. I was nodding along un

> Under the bill, grantees would be required to put their works in a state-provided open access repository within a year of publication. I was nodding along until I got to that quote. Why does it have to be in the state-provided one? Can't you just set the rules and be done? And if you are concerned that researchers have to maintain a website, then you can have an optional state-provided repo. I hope this model is not adopted generally across states and just requiring transparent access is enough. That way places that comply with the spirit of the rule could arise without being run by the government or concerned with publishing to each grantor's repository.

Vinnl 8y ago
One concern that I can imagine them having is long-term sustainability. If you allow researcher websites, you have to add additional provisions guaranteeing long-term availability, indexation, permanent identifiers, etc. They might even want to upload them to for-profit websites like ResearchGate or Academia.edu that at any point might hide the work behind paywalls, sell readers' data, add their own pages to the work, etc. However, if you mandate a state-provided repository, you can just make sure it ticks all the boxes and be done with it.
- kodablah 8y ago
  I'm not sure I trust the state any more than any other website wrt archival. "Be done with it" if you mean the legislation sure...but the implementation is where the fear lies, there is no "be done with it", it's now just another interminably maintained government resource. Maybe there's a middle ground or what will likely occur is there will be a clearing house middleman that will solve challenges of uploading to each government's mandated site if this approach becomes more pervasive.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Haha yeah I mean "be done with it" in terms of legislations. In all likelihood, what will happen is that they outsource the maintenance to one of the traditional publishers, or a company that they have acquired (such as Bepress) or will acquire.
slavik81 8y ago
Is it really that onerous to do whatever it is you want with your paper, and then just send a copy to the people who gave you your funding? The State of California funds a lot of research, and having it all available in one place should make things like archiving much easier. My lab has all our papers available on our website, but my supervisor is old. He's not going to live forever. It won't be too long after he goes that the website will go too. The server needs security updates every once in a while. The DNS will expire in ten years. We don't use HTTPS, but if we did, it would expire within a couple years. All easy stuff, but when the only person responsible for doing it has died, it won't get done.
- kodablah 8y ago
  If it is "just send a copy" of course it's not that onerous. But you intentionally framed it in the most simple sounding way. I understand the benefit of centralized hubs, I just also understand that governments are rarely good at building them. At the very least it's a concern worth noting instead of pretending everything will be perfect. I'd rather the law just stay with rules and move towards required centralization as needed. For your lab, it sounds like you'd leverage an optional system by choice.

Vinnl 8y ago

One concern that I can imagine them having is long-term sustainability. If you allow researcher websites, you have to add additional provisions guaranteeing long-term availability, indexation, permanent identifiers, etc. They might even want to upload them to for-profit websites like ResearchGate or Academia.edu that at any point might hide the work behind paywalls, sell readers' data, add their own pages to the work, etc. However, if you mandate a state-provided repository, you can just make sure it ticks all the boxes and be done with it.

kodablah 8y ago
I'm not sure I trust the state any more than any other website wrt archival. "Be done with it" if you mean the legislation sure...but the implementation is where the fear lies, there is no "be done with it", it's now just another interminably maintained government resource. Maybe there's a middle ground or what will likely occur is there will be a clearing house middleman that will solve challenges of uploading to each government's mandated site if this approach becomes more pervasive.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Haha yeah I mean "be done with it" in terms of legislations. In all likelihood, what will happen is that they outsource the maintenance to one of the traditional publishers, or a company that they have acquired (such as Bepress) or will acquire.

slavik81 8y ago

Is it really that onerous to do whatever it is you want with your paper, and then just send a copy to the people who gave you your funding? The State of California funds a lot of research, and having it all available in one place should make things like archiving much easier. My lab has all our papers available on our website, but my supervisor is old. He's not going to live forever. It won't be too long after he goes that the website will go too. The server needs security updates every once in a while. The DNS will expire in ten years. We don't use HTTPS, but if we did, it would expire within a couple years. All easy stuff, but when the only person responsible for doing it has died, it won't get done.

kodablah 8y ago
If it is "just send a copy" of course it's not that onerous. But you intentionally framed it in the most simple sounding way. I understand the benefit of centralized hubs, I just also understand that governments are rarely good at building them. At the very least it's a concern worth noting instead of pretending everything will be perfect. I'd rather the law just stay with rules and move towards required centralization as needed. For your lab, it sounds like you'd leverage an optional system by choice.