Objections
Self archiving (and more recently Open Access) have become possible through the adoption of Internet and Web technologies since the early 1990's. However, some academics are put off Internet dissemination due to its association with the “hobbyist and hacker” image that grew up around these technologies. Others project historically unresolved issues about the literature (e.g. preservation beyond the collapse of civilisation) onto the new technology, refusing to engage with it until a solution can be found.
The following pages address the classic most frequently-occurring worries and objections to self-archiving.
Self-Archiving is Too Much Effort! It is tempting to think, as an over-worked researcher, that once an article has been accepted for publication, one has discharged one's responsibility to it and that now it is safe to forget about it and go on to write the next paper. It can seem an irritation (and an administrative imposition) to have to also upload it to an eprint archive and fill out iterminable forms describing its contents.
But the point of writing a paper in the first place is to publicise research that would otherwise go unregarded, unnoted and unused. Publishing in a journal is one step towards dissemination, but recent studies have shown that making research accessible on the Web leads to a tripling in its uptake (in the form of citations).
It is this increase in impact which is the motivation behind eprint archiving, and which compensates for the necessary effort involved in providing accurate metadata.
Self-Archiving is an Amateur Form of Publishing Self-Archiving is not the same as publishing. Scientific publishing (in journals, conferences or workshops) involves a degree of scrutiny by peers as a quality review process. Different publications exercise different amounts of peer review, and different communities exercise different kinds of scrutiny for different purposes. This process is controlled by the editorial board of the publication and is what separates genuine scientific publication from so-called "vanity publishing" which is unreviewed. Consequently, archiving is completely different from scientific publishing. It is a process of distribution, but without any statement of quality or badge of acceptance by a journal editorial board, a conference program committee or any externally validated group of experts.
But What About...? The complete list of objections to self-archiving together with responses that address them is maintained in the Self-Archiving FAQ, and are linked to below.