Fwd: Estimating institutional total annual institutional article output vs estimating percentage deposit

Sun Sep 21 10:11:13 EDT 2014

[Bibliometric questions of possible interest to SIGMET list, forwarded from
GOAL]

Using total institutional Web-of-Science-indexed article output as the
baseline with which to compare instutional deposit percentages yields an
underestimate (as we always state with our findings) *of total
institutional article output*, of course, by definition.

But it is not at all clear that there is any reason to assume that that
this is an underestimate of the *deposit percentage*. (Why would authors be
more compliant with a deposit mandate with non-WoS journal articles than
with WoS journal articles?)

As I have already replied to Jean-Claude, if someone believes that the
deposit percentage would be systematically different for non-WoS articles,
there are ways to test this. An obvious way is to specifically test SCOPUS
*non-WoS-indexed* articles, to see whether their deposit percentage turns
out to be any different. Other indices can be used too, to test
non-ISI-articles, including non-English-language indices.

But I do think that there is some conflation of total output with deposit
percentage here. For any institutional repository, we know the total
deposits, we just don't know what percentage of total institutional output
they reflect.

Now Liège has a second way to estimate this (*if they can be confident that
Liège authors have indeed at least been compliant in depositing the
bibliographic metadata for all their articles, as mandated*).

And the fact that the Liège repository (ORBi) has been designated as the
sole means of submitting publications for institutional performance review
makes it very likely that Liège authors have been faithfully depositing all
their metadata there. This does give Liège a way to improve its estimate of
the percentage deposit of full texts.

But this method (as I'm sure Bernard & Paul will agree) is a bit of a
bootstrap, as it is based on the assumption (not the evidence) *that all
authors are faithfully depositing the metadata for all their articles.*

The WoS estimate makes no such assumption. It gets the metadata from a
reliable source elsewhere. (But the comparison is certainly worth making.)

Other institutions, however, whose mandates do not yet include Liège's
all-important performance-review condition, will not be able to use this
second method to estimate the effectiveness of their deposit mandates.
Indeed, one of the rationales for adopting an institutional deposit mandate
is that *institutions currently have no way of knowing their total research
output* -- hence they can only find out by consulting external databases
such as WoS or SCOPUS!

One last point. It is certain that WoS underestimates total
non-English-language article output and hence it is conceivable that
authors at a non-English-language institution could have a higher deposit
rate for their non-English-language articles than their English ones.
Whether the WoS baseline thus generates a biassed underestimate of overall
percentage deposit at non-English-language institutions can be tested
against a relevant non-English-language bibliographic index.

However, this definitely does not support Jean-Claude's parallel conjecture
that the WoS baseline might produce a biassed estimate of the deposit
percentage of SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) *journal articles*. It
is logically possible that SSH authors are selectively non-compliant with
deposit mandates for their journal articles -- but that, of course, could
already be tested with the WoS baseline data...

*Stevan Harnad*

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Richard Poynder <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk
> wrote in GOAL:

> As a layperson I would certainly be interested to know what margin of
> error levels we can assume the “Web of Science and/or in Scopus” approach
> has. I am conscious, for instance, that some of the reports by UK
> universities into RCUK compliance mention using Web of Science, but they
> all appear keen to stress that they have serious concerns about data
> accuracy.
>
>
>
> A list of RCUK compliance reports, by the way, can be found here:
> http://goo.gl/Yi3twT
>
>
>
> There is also a very informative blog post on the topic of monitoring open
> access mandates/policies by Cameron Neylon here: http://goo.gl/Y02S87
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jean-Claude Guédon
> *Sent:* 20 September 2014 23:27
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster
>
>
>
> Extremely good answer, Bernard!
>
> It is also very good to clarify the fact that the 90% figure is calculated
> against the baseline of a combined WoS_Scopus search. However, and this was
> part of my difficulties with Stevan's argument, I suspect that in SSH, in a
> French-speaking university, many publish in French-language journals that
> do not appear in either list. This means that, for Liège, the baseline
> works from one year to the next, but if you want to compare Liège's mandate
> and its effectiveness (which, once again, I agree, is - from common sense -
> the best) with another kind of mandate in an English-speaking university,
> the baselines will not be comparable.
>
> If, furthermore, you imagine two universities that not only differ
> linguistically, but also differ in the relative weight of disciplines in
> research output - say one heavily slanted STM and the other heavily slanted
> SSH, this too will affect the baseline simply by virtue of the fact that
> SSH publications are not as well covered by WoS and Scopus as are STM
> publications.
>
> In conclusion, the baseline is OK for comparisons of a mandate's
> effectiveness longitudinally, of for comparison purposes of two successive,
> but different, mandates, assuming the institution remains pretty much the
> same over time in terms of mix of research emphases; it is far more
> questionable across institutions, especially when different languages are
> involved (but not only).
>
> Incidentally, what proportion of papers deposited in ORBI do not appear in
> either WoS or Scopus? That too would be interesting to know as it might
> help Stevan refine his baseline and thus make it more convincing.
>
> Finally, given that all universities require, an annual assessment of
> performance, including a bibliography of publications in the completed
> year, would it be difficult to compare the repository's holding against the
> publications of the researchers as declared by them? Knowing researchers,
> every last little scrap of paper will be minutely listed in the yearly
> assessment forms... [image: :-)]
>
> --
>
>
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> Professeur titulaire
>
> Littérature comparée
>
> Université de Montréal
>
> Le samedi 20 septembre 2014 à 19:10 +0200, Bernard Rentier - IMAP a écrit :
>
> Dear Richard,
>
>
>
> Here are the answers:
>
>
>
> 1. ORBi, the Liège University Repository, will soon (I believe) reach 90%
> compliance. It is our target for 2014 and I hope we make it.
>
> This figure comes from the calculation of the percentage of ULg papers
> that can be found in Web of Science and/or in Scopus that are deposited in
> ORBi as well (see method in  http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/)
>
> It concerns one year at a time and it is not cumulative. Last May, the
> compliance level for the publications of 2013 was already 73% and our
> figure for 2012 is in the 80% range.
>
>
>
> 2. Only a small proportion of ULg papers are in CC-BY.
>
> This is simply because, in order to publish in the journal of their choice
> (I haven’t tried to do anything against that!), our authors, in the great
> centuries-old tradition, give away their rights to the publisher. We have
> no control on that.
>
> Later on, there is no way for them to CC-BY the same text (in fact, we are
> preparing ORBi 2.0, that will offer a CC-BY choice).
>
> For now, we are aiming at free access and we are not yet fighting hard for
> re-use rights. We shall move progressively in this direction of course,
> while the publishing mores evolve…
>
> In other words, I agree that we have free access, not a full fledge open
> access yet. It is not a failure, it is our objective to gain confidence
> first.
>
> Unfortunately, even if we have established in-house rules for evaluation,
> external evaluations are still based on traditional indicators such as the
> highly and rightfully criticized but widely used Impact Factor and the
> like. In these conditions, today we cannot sacrifice our researchers —
> singularly the young ones — in the overall competition for jobs and funds,
> on the altar of « pure » Open Access.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Bernard Rentier
>
> Rector, University of Liège, Belgium
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 19 sept. 2014 à 21:52, Richard Poynder <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk> a
> écrit :
>
>
>
> Dear Bernard,
>
>
>
> I have two questions if I may:
>
>
>
> 1.       You say that Liège is getting close to 90% compliance. Can you
> explain how you know that, and how you calculate compliance levels? I ask
> this because the consistent theme coming through from UK universities with
> regard to compliance to the RCUK OA mandate is that they simply do not know
> how many research outputs their faculty produce each year. If that is
> right, what systems does Liège have in place to enable it to produce a
> comprehensive list of research outputs that UK universities apparently do
> not have?
>
>
>
> 2.       Does Liège track the licences attached to the deposits in its
> repository? If so, can you provide some stats, especially the number of
> items that are available CC-BY (which we are now told is required before a
> deposit can be characterised as being open access?
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org
> <goal-bounces at eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *brentier at ulg.ac.be
> *Sent:* 19 September 2014 18:46
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster
>
>
>
> "*Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into
> the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess
> performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions.*"
> (JC. Guédon)
>
>
>
> Oh no, Jean-Claude, Liège mandates everything.
>
> It is a real mandate and it took me a while to get almost every ULg
> researcher to realise that it is to his/her benefit.
>
> Linking the deposits to personal in-house assessment was the trick to get
> the mandate enforced in the first place. As well as a few positive
> incentives and a lot of time consuming persuasion (but it was well worth
> it).
>
> Last Wednesday, the Liège University Board has put an ultimate touch of
> wisdom on its mandate by adding "*immediately upon acceptance, even in
> restricted access*" in the official procedure. Actually, a nice but to
> some extent useless addition because, with time (the mandate was imposed in
> 2007), ULg authors have become so convinced of the increase in readership
> and citations that two thirds of them make their deposits between the date
> of acceptance and the date of publication.
>
> All this explains why we are getting close to 90% compliance, an
> outstanding result, I believe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 18 sept. 2014 à 23:40, Jean-Claude Guédon <
> jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> a écrit :
>
> A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive tsunami
> mode...
>
> 1. Stevan admits that his evaluation of compliance is an approximation,
> easy to get, but not easy to correct. This approximation varies greatly
> from one institution to another, one circumstance to another. For example,
> he admits that language plays a role; he should further admit that the
> greater or smaller proportion of SSH researchers in the research
> communities of various institutions will also play a role. in short,
> comparing two institutions by simply using WoS approximations appears rash
> and unacceptable to me, rather than simply quick and dirty (which I would
> accept as a first approximation).
>
> The impact factor folly was mentioned because, by basing his approximation
> on the WoS, Stevan reinforces the centrality of a partial and questionable
> tool that is, at best, a research tool, not a management tool, and which
> stands behind all the research assessment procedures presently used in
> universities, laboratories, etc.
>
> 2. Stevan and I have long differed about OA's central target. He limits
> himself to journal articles, as a first step; I do not. I do not because,
> in the humanities and social sciences, limiting oneself to journal articles
> would be limiting oneself to the less essential part of the archive we work
> with, unlike natural scientists.
>
> Imagine a universe where a research metric would have been initially
> designed around SSH disciplines and then extended as is to STM. In such a
> parallel universe, books would be the currency of choice, and articles
> would look like secondary, minor, productions, best left for later
> assessments. Then, one prominent OA advocate named Stenan Harvard might
> argue that the only way to proceed forward is to focus only on books, that
> this is OA's sole objective, and that articles and the rest will be treated
> later... Imagine the reaction of science researchers...
>
> 3. Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into
> the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess
> performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions. If
> books and book chapters are more difficult to treat than articles, then
> place them in a dark archive with a button. This was the clever solution
> invented by Stevan and I agree with it.
>
> 4. To obtain mandates, you need either faculty to vote a mandate on itself
> (but few universities have done so), or you need administrators to impose a
> mandate, but that is often viewed negatively by many of our colleagues.
> Meanwhile, they are strongly incited to publish in "prestigious journals"
> where prestige is "measured" by impact factors. From an average
> researcher's perspective, one article in Nature, fully locked behind
> pay-walls, is what is really valuable. Adding open access may be the cherry
> on the sundae, but it is not the sundae. The result? OA, as of now, is not
> perceived to be directly significant for successfully managing a career.
>
> On the other hand, the OA citation advantage has been fully recognized and
> accepted by publishers. That is in part why they are finally embracing OA:
> with high processing charges and the increased citation potential of OA,
> they can increase revenues even more and satisfy their stakeholders. This
> is especially true if funders, universities, libraries, etc., are willing
> to pay for the APC's. This is the trap the UK fell into.
>
> 5. SSH authors are less interested in depositing articles than STM
> researchers because, for SSH researchers, articles have far less importance
> than books (see above), and, arguably, book chapters.
>
> 6. I am not citing rationales for the status quo, and Stevan knows this
> well. This must be the first time that I have ever been associated with the
> status quo... Could it be that criticizing Stevan on one point could be
> seen by him as fighting for the status? But that would be true only if
> Stevan were right beyond the slightest doubt. Hmmmmmmmmmm!
>
> I personally think he is right on some points and not so right on others.
>
> Also, I am simply trying to think about reasons why OA has been so hard to
> achieve so far, and, in doing so, I have come to two conclusions: too
> narrow an objective and too rigid an approach can both be
> counter-productive.
>
> This said, trying to have a method to compare deposit rates in various
> institutional and mandate circumstances would be very useful. I support
> Stevan's general objective in this regard; I simply object to the validity
> of the method he suggests. Alas, I have little to suggest beyond my
> critique.
>
> I also suggest that  a better understanding of the sociology of research
> (not the sociology of knowledge) is crucial to move forward.
>
> Finally, I expect that if I saw Stevan self-archive his abundant
> scientific production, I would be awed by the lightning speed of his
> keystrokes. But are they everybody's keystrokes?
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> Professeur titulaire
>
> Littérature comparée
>
> Université de Montréal
>
> Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 12:28 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <
> jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> Most interesting dialogue.
>
> I will focus on two points:
>
> 1. *Using the Web of Science collection as a reference*: this generates
> all kinds of problems, particularly for disciplines that are not dominated
> and skewed by the impact factor folly. This is true, for example, of most
> of the social sciences and the humanities, especially when these
> publications are not in English.
>
>
>
> The purpose of using WoS (or SCOPUS, or any other standardized index) as a
> * baseline* for assessing OA repository success is to be able to estimate
> (and compare) *what percentage of an institution's total annual refereed
> journal article output has been self-archived. *
>
>
>
> Raw total or annual deposit counts tell us neither (1) whether the
> deposits are refereed journal articles nor (2) when the articles were
> published, nor (most important of all) (3) what proportion of total annual
> refereed journal article output is deposited.
>
>
>
> Institutions do not know even know their total annual refereed journal
> article output. (One of the (many) reasons for mandating self-archiving is
> in order to get that information.)
>
>
>
> The WoS (or SCOPUS, or other) standardized database provides the
> denominator against which the deposits of those articles provide the
> numerator.
>
>
>
> Once that ratio is known (for WoS articles, for example), it provides an
> estimate of the proportion of total institutional article output
> deposited.
>
>
>
> Anyone can then "correct" the ratio for their institution and discipline,
> if they wish, by simply taking a (large enough) sample of total
> institutional journal article output for a recent year and seeing what
> percentage of it is in WoS! (This would obviously have to be done
> discipline by discipline; and indeed the institutional totals should also
> be broken down and analyzed by discipline.)
>
>
>
> So if  D/W, the WoS-deposit/total-WoS ratio = R, and w/s, the
> WoS-indexed-portion/total-output-sample = c, then c can be used to upgrade
> W to the estimate of total institutional article output, and the WoS
> deposit ratio R can be compared to the deposit ratio for the non-WoS sample
> (*which must not, of course, be derived from the repository, but some
> other way!*) to get a non-WoS ratio of Rc.
>
>
>
> My own prediction is that R and Rc will be quite similar, but if not, c
> can also be used to correct R to better reflect both WoS and non-WoS output
> and their relative sizes.
>
>
>
> But R is still by far the easiest and fastest way to get an estimate of
> institutional deposit percentages.
>
>
>
> (As far as I can see, none of this has much to do with impact factor
> folly. For non-English-language institutions, however, the non-WoS
> correction may be more substantial.)
>
>
>
> Stevan has also and long argued about limiting oneself to journal
> articles. I have my own difficulties with this limitation because book
> chapters and monographs are so important in the disciplines that I tend to
> work in. Also, I regularly write in French as well as English, while
> reading articles in a variety of languages. Most of the articles that are
> not in English are not in the Web of Science. A better way to proceed would
> be to check if the journals not in the WoS, and corresponding to deposited
> articles, are peer-reviewed. The same could be done with book chapters.
> Incidentally, if I limited myself to WoS publications for annual
> performance review, I would look rather bad. I suspect I am not the only
> one in such a situation, while leading a fairly honourable career in
> academe.
>
>
>
> Authors are welcome to deposit as much as they like: articles, chapters,
> books, data, software.
>
>
>
> But OA's primary target (and also its primary obstacle) is journal
> articles. Ditto for OA mandates.
>
>
>
> All disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, in all
> languages, write journal articles. This discussion is about the means of
> measuring the success of an OA self-archiving mandate. It applies to all
> journal articles (and refereed conference articles) in all disciplines.
>
>
>
> There are problems with mandating book deposit, or even book chapter
> deposit, so that is being left for later.
>
>
>
> Nothing is being said about performance review except that the way to
> submit journal articles should be stipulated to be repository deposit.
>
>
>
> 2. *The issue of rules and regulations.* It is absolutely true that a
> procedure such as the one adopted at the Université de Liège and which
> Stevan aptly summarizes as (with a couple of minor modifications): "*henceforth
> the way to submit refereedjournal article publications for annual
> performance review is to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR "*.
>
>
>
> Liège does not mandate the deposit of books.
>
>
>
> However, obtaining this change of behaviour from an administration is no
> small task. At the local, institutional, level, it corresponds to a
> politically charged effort that requires having a number of committed OA
> advocates working hard to push the idea. Stevan should know this from his
> own experience in Montreal; he should also know that, presently, the Open
> Access issue is not on the radar of most researchers. In scientific
> disciplines, they tend to be mesmerized by impact factors without making
> the link between this obsession and the OA advantage, partly because enough
> controversies have surrounded this issue to maintain a general feeling of
> uncertainty and doubt. In the social sciences and humanities where the
> citation rates are far less "meaningful" - I put quotation marks here to
> underscore the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of citation numbers:
> visibility, prestige, quality? - the benefits of self-archiving one's
> articles in open access are less obvious to researchers, especially if they
> do not adopt a global perspective on the importance of the "grand
> conversation" needed to produce knowledge in an optimal manner, but rather
> intend to manage and protect their career.
>
>
>
> I am not sure what is the point of the above observations. I agree it has
> been difficult to get authors to deposit. That's why the OA movement has
> turned to mandates, and now to ways of optimizing mandates so as to
> facilitate and maximize success (i.e. deposit rates). And here we are just
> talking about how to measure and compare those deposit rates between
> institutions, and between mandates.
>
>
>
> Nothing about impact factors, performance evaluation criteria, metrics,
> discipline criteria or language differences. Just ways to induce journal
> article authors to deposit them in their institutional repositories.
>
>
>
> Saying all this is not saying that we should not remain committed to OA,
> far from it; is is simply saying that the chances of success in reaching OA
> will not be significantly improved by simply referring to "huge" benefits
> at the cost of only a few extra keystrokes. This is rhetoric. The last time
> I deposited an article of mine, given the procedure used in the depository
> I was using, it took me close to half an hour to enter all the details
> required by that depository - a depository organized by librarians, mainly
> for information science specialists. All these details were legitimate and
> potentially useful.  However, while I was absolutely sure I was doing the
> right thing, I could well understand why a colleague less sanguine about OA
> than I am might push this task to the back burner. In fact, I did so myself
> for several months. Shame on me, probably, but this is the reality of the
> quotidian.
>
>
>
> I invite Jean-Claude to time me depositing an article in my institutional
> repository (and I am not a fast typist)! It takes about two minutes.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, i suspect that if Stevan focuses on such a narrowly-defined
> target - journal articles in the STM disciplines - this is because he
> gambles on the fact that making these disciplines fully OA would force the
> other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences to follow suit
> sooner or later. Perhaps, it is so, but perhaps it is not. Meanwhile,
> arguing in this fashion tends to alienate practitioners of the humanities
> and the social sciences, so that the alleged advantages of narrowly
> focusing on a well-defined target are perhaps more than negatively
> compensated by the neglect of SSH disciplines. yet, the latter constitute
> about half, if not more, of the researchers in the world.
>
>
>
> The target is journal articles in all disciplines. Not clear why SSH
> journal article authors would be any more or less compliant with
> self-archiving mandates than any other discipline. It has nothing to do
> with books, yet.
>
>
>
> Yes, once journal articles are being self-archived universally, many other
> things will follow.
>
>
>
> I suggest that it may be more constructive to practice deposit keystrokes
> to provide OA than to cite a-priori rationales for the status quo,
> Jean-Claude. I bet you'll be up to speed after depositing just a few
> articles!
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> *From: *Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
> *Subject: *Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster
> *Date: *September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4
>
> *To: *JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <proyster2 at UNL.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the waters
> of scholarly communications,
> but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier this
> month, I shall venture the following …
>
> Answers for Dr. Harnad
>
> (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal
> articles (only) per year is
> deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished your
> graduate student (at least he
> said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could compare
> it to Web of Science
> publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I
> cautioned him that I felt Web of
> Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample, but I
> sent the data anyway.
> So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If the news
> is good, I hope you will
> share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your guide.
> As for benchmarking, I don’t believe
> it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free scholarship
> is a positive one. I hope when
> they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for participation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I just
> called him to ask about
> the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the results of
> the analysis in 2-3 weeks!
>
>
> So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data. Apparently
> Sue was not aware that UNL
> had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!).
>
>
> (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate?
> I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that is my
> university’s administration;
> so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I have not
> campaigned for adoption of
> such a mandate.  My reasons have been purely personal and idiosyncratic,
> and I do not hold them
> up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or attitude
> of this university. Bluntly,
> I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are enough
> regulations and requirements
> in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further problems of
> enforcement or compliance,
> and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too many
> rules: we have to park in
> designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke products; we
> have to wear red on game
> days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc. etc. etc.
> I simply do not believe in
> creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own good.
> The Faculty Senate
> voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not desired more
> than that. But I am
> concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one medium-sized
> university town—not
> with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly communications
> crisis. I see discussions lately
> about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—who is
> intended to be bitten?
> Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty.
>
>
>
> I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few extra
> keystrokes when a refereed
> final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and the
> potential benefits are huge. Also,
> there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a self-archiving
> mandate — if it’s the right
> self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that* henceforth
> the way to submit refereed*
> *journal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit
> them in UNL’s IR* (rather than
> however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will comply
> as naturally as they did
> when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in hard
> copy. It’s just a technological upgrade.
>
>
>
> (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?
> I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to Sue’s
> catalog of various proposed
> solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS,
> SHARE, and others”—as
> all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.” I
> feel we are strong believers and
> even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and disdainful
> non-advocates for author-pays models.
> But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests between
> the global theoretics of the
> open access “movements” on the one hand and the “boots-on-the-ground”
> practicalities of managing
> a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other. Crusades for
> and controversies about
> “open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually do, and
> now seem more of a
> distraction than a help or guide.
>
>
>
> I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library can’t
> mandate self-archiving,  can’t fund
> author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe, if
> you look at the evidence that
> mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could encourage the
> administration… And
> of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can help
> with mediated self-archiving,
> at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly necessary,
> for a few keystrokes — certainly
> a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking down the
> PDF. checking the rights. etc.).
>
>
> We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green” open
> access; and we have appreciated
> Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against
> innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and
> “holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I sympathize with
> his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness,
> and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of this
> response will be interpreted as attempting
> to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if these
> answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete,
> but that is all I can manage at this time.
>
>
>
> Much appreciated, Paul!
>
>
> Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other IRs,
> mandated and unmandated.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Stevan
>
>
>
> Paul Royster
> Coordinator of Scholarly Communications
> University of Nebraska–Lincoln
> proyster at unl.edu
> http://digitalcommons.unl.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> GOAL mailing list
>
> GOAL at eprints.org
>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> GOAL mailing list
>
> GOAL at eprints.org
>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> GOAL mailing list
>
> GOAL at eprints.org
>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140921/a230f5b2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 925 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140921/a230f5b2/attachment.png>