In a posting to the American Scientist Open Access Forum Sally Morris notes:
It's one of the curious things about the 'Open Access movement' that uptake by the academics themselves (for whose benefit it is supposed to be) depends on compulsion.
I made a similar point, though I suspect for completely different reasons, in my recent posting about repositories:
Yes, we can acknowledge our failure to put services in place that people find intuitively compelling to use by trying to force their use thru institutional or national mandates? But wouldn't it be nicer to build services that people actually came to willingly?
Steven Harnard, in his response to Sally, notes that:
But if "compulsion" is indeed the right word for mandating self-archiving, I wonder whether Sally was ever curious about why publication itself had to be mandated by researchers' institutions and funders ("publish or perish"), despite its substantial benefits to researchers?
I don't consider myself a real researcher [tm] so I probably shouldn't comment but I've always assumed that "publish or perish" resulted at least as much from social pressure as from policy pressure. Self-archiving should be the same - it should be the expected norm because it is the obvious and intuitive thing for researchers to do to gain impact.