 |
 |
(Un?)fortunately, potential mandators are members of the set of grown-up academics themselves. Why would it be easier to convince potential mandators instead of convincing authors directly? Leo. Stevan Harnad wrote: > The difference, Hugh, is that your ex-smoker analogy applies at the > level of persuading the /individual author/ to deposit, whereas the > mandate applies at the level of persuading /authors' institutions/ to > mandate deposit (= ban on-premise smoking!). You're comparing apples > and fruit... > > The reason self-archiving mandates (and smoking bans) are necessary is > precisely because it would take till the heat death of the universe to > get either of these things to come to pass -- universal self-archiving > or universal non-smoking -- if we were to rely on one-on-one arguments > alone, new or old. It is (unaccountably, for we are clearly not > talking here about children!) rather like trying to persuade each > individual child not to stuff himself with candy because it will make > him hyperactive, give him diabetes, or make his teeth rot. They'll > just keep munching away! > > That's what parents are for (and, unaccountably) even grown-up > academics need a bit of benign parenting, for their own good! We > already do it with our universal "publish or perish" mandates: time to > extend those now to the mandatory deposit of those perishables... > > Stevan > > On 22-Mar-10, at 2:57 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > >> Some people smoke, and others sometimes try to persuade them to stop. >> They use arguments such as "It's bad for your health", "You are >> spending a >> lot of money" and "You won't get a boyfriend smelling like that". >> >> Each of these works for some people - different people have different >> things >> that motivate them, relating to their personal objectives as well as >> their >> tendency to prioritise concrete (money) versus abstract (may die 20 years >> early) benefits. >> >> Often the people who are worst at understanding the process of getting >> people to stop smoking are ex-smokers, who assume as a given that the >> reason >> they stopped will be the reason they can persuade someone else to >> stop. And >> the response that the smoker doesn't care about their reason is >> simply met >> with the view that they need to explain more, rather than do the >> research to >> find another one that works. >> >> I am sometimes reminded of ex-smokers in other fields of life. >> >> On 22/03/2010 15:19, "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >>> On 22-Mar-10, at 6:07 AM, Charles Christacopoulos wrote: >>> >>>> Stevan Harnad said the following on 22/03/2010 on jisc-repositories: >>>> >>>>> (1) You want to fill your repository? Mandate deposit. >>>>> (2) You want a repository that is not a "mess"? Mandate deposit. >>>>> (3) You want your work to be maximally visible to google? Deposit >>>>> it in your repository. >>>>> (4) You want it on your website too? Export it from your repository. >>>>> (5) You want to generate a CV? Generate it from your repository. >>>>> (6) You want to generate annual reports? Generate them from your >>>>> repository. >>>>> (8) You want rich usage and impact metrics? Generate them from your >>>>> repository. >>>>> (9) You want to keep repositories empty? Rely on harvesting their >>>>> contents from google. >>>>> (10) You want grounded advice on how to fill a repository? Ask >>>>> someone who has done it, and knows. >>>> >>>> Useful comments (for us anyhow) as we are going through similar >>>> issues to Newcastle. However the OP was asking about writing a >>>> paper for their research committee, i.e. trying to convince the >>>> management of the need for a repository. So what is the evidence >>>> that is required to convince the management to mandate etc? >>>> >>>> I can only think of 2-3 things which do not go that far in convincing. >>>> >>>> * Research Excellence Framework (REF). A repository may provide >>>> some small increase of citations (by publishing earlier, by >>>> increasing exposure). >>>> * REF again. A full repository could make easier the selection of >>>> "the best 3-4" outputs. >>>> * Research Council requirements for outcomes of their funded projects. >>> >>> >>> First, let me suggest that you consult EOS >>> http://www.openscholarship.org >>> and OASIS http://www.openoasis.org/ for help in inspiring your >>> university to adopt a mandate. Those two sites are created and updated >>> by experienced and knowledgeable experts who really know what they are >>> talking about, when it comes to IRs and IR mandates. >> How come a question that I think was about how to encourage the >> researchers >> to put their papers in repositories becomes yet another thread about >> how to >> convince institutions to encourage universities to adopt a mandate? >> Staff are pissed off enough with management telling them what to do >> in every >> sphere of their work, without adding more. >> The fact is that staff might want to deposit, and demand their >> institutions >> adopt a mandate, if people worked out what their individual >> motivations were >> and appealed to them (well almost...). >> http://www.openscholarship.org - what is it about? >> Their Briefing papers: >>> Briefing Paper on Open Access for research managers and administrators >>> Briefing Paper on institutional repositories >>> Briefing Paper on business aspects of institutional repositories for >>> research >> managers and administrators >>> Briefing Paper on institutional repositories for research management and >> assessment >>> Briefing Paper: A national model for showcasing research >> Not much help there it seems - I can see who they are talking to. >> Maybe the second of those? >> Oh no, major heading: >> "The advantages of a repository to an institution" >> >> http://www.openoasis.org/? >> "Practical Steps for implementing Open Access" >> Not sure that is going to tell users what the benefits are. >> There is a briefing paper for researchers, but it only seems to talk >> about >> the benefit of "impact". >> >> I would be really excited to see some detailed research on what >> researchers >> actually want, and how repositories should respond, cited as the top >> paper >> in these discussions. This is the point that anyone should start from. >> It is all well and good if the only thing that motivates you is citation, >> download, etc. >> But what is the evidence that the people who are not depositing actually >> care about these issues? >> OK - I am hopeful that this social science research has been done, >> but if it >> isn't the first thing to cite in response to the question, then I am not >> sure that the rest of a response is going to give useful advice. >> >> I suspect some people are getting bored with me asking for this entirely >> researcher-oriented approach - if so, email me and I will desist. >> >> Best >> Hugh >>> >>> Let me also add, by way of supplement, a few other points: >>> >>> (1) About the relation between mandated vs. unmandated repository >>> deposit rates, there are Arthur Sale's studies -- >>> http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/authors/Sale,_AHJ.html >>> >>> Sale, AHJ (2006) Comparison of IR content policies in Australia. First >>> Monday, 11 (4). http://eprints.utas.edu.au/264/ >>> >>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/sale1.gif >>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/sale2.gif >>> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/sale3.gif >>> >>> and our own recent study: >>> >>> Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, >>> L. and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access >>> Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLOS ONE >>> (submitted) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18493/ >>> >>> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/yassine/SelfArchiving/SelfArch_files/img3.gif >>> >>> They both confirm that the unmandated (i.e. spontaneous, self- >>> selected) deposit rate is about 15% (of annual published article >>> output) whereas within about 2 years of adoption the mandated deposit >>> rate is 60% and rising. (For the 4 longest-standing mandates -- >>> Southampton ECS, QUT, Minho and CERN -- it's actually higher, but our >>> studies were based on just the Thompson/Reuters WoS-indexed subset, >>> and what could be robot-harvested from the web, so these are actually >>> conservative under-estimates of mandated deposit rate, but could they >>> could thereby be compared with matched estimates of unmandated deposit >>> rate). >>> >>> Our study also confirms the widely reported OA citation advantage, and >>> shows that it is not, as some have tried to argue, an artifact of self- >>> selection (selective self-archiving of better -- hence more citeable >>> -- articles, by better authors). >>> >>> Mandates themselves vary, somewhat, depending on how they treat >>> embargoes, and whether or not they allow an opt-out waiver. The >>> strongest mandates are immediate-deposit + immediate-OA or immediate- >>> deposit + optional OA (which allows a delay not in when the deposit is >>> made but in when access to that deposit is made OA in case of a >>> publisher embargo). Such mandates are the fastest and most effective >>> in filling repositories (especially when the repository itself is made >>> the mechanism for submitting publications for annual performance >>> review, as in the Liege mandate, for example). Delayed-deposit >>> mandates, and mandates allowing opt-outs or waivers are weaker, and >>> their success rate is not yet documented. >>> >>> The optimal compromise mandate is immediate-deposit (i.e., deposit of >>> the refereed final draft immediately upon acceptance for publication), >>> with any opt-out/waiver applicable only to whether and when access to >>> the deposit is set as OA rather than Closed Access, not whether and >>> when it is deposited. (That way, the repositories' "Fair Dealing" >>> Button allows users to request single copies from the author semi- >>> automatically during any publisher embargo period: >>> >>> Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2010) >>> Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair >>> Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren >>> Wershler, Eds.) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ >>> >>> (2) There are download stats for IR usage. EPrints IRs, for example, >>> have IRstats: http://irstats.eprints.org/irstats-cadair >>> (3) There is a relation between download statistics and other >>> indicators of research usage and impact. (In particular, early >>> download rates predict later citation rates (see references below) >>> >>> (4) As the number of mandates grows, we will set up a comparator >>> between the ROAR registry of IRs and the ROARMAP registry of IR >>> mandates, to compare the growth rate of mandated and unmandated IRs >>> explicitly, both in terms of deposit rates and usage rates. (Of course >>> the real test is the relative usage and citation rate for OA and non- >>> OA articles, not just IRs, because deposited articles may be harvested >>> and mirrored at other cites too, such as Citeseer.) >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> >>> Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A. and Chute, R. (2009) A >>> principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures in PLoS >>> ONE 4(6): e6022 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2183v1 >>> >>> Brody, T., Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2006) Earlier Web Usage Statistics >>> as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American >>> Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 57(8) >>> 1060-1072. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ >>> Gentil-Beccot, Anne; Salvatore Mele, Travis Brooks (2009) Citing and >>> Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics: How a Community Stopped >>> Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories >>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5418v1 >>> >>> Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer >>> Rankings . Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi: >>> 10.3354/esep00088 The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In >>> Evaluating Scholarly Performance http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15619/ >>> >>> Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research >>> Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1) Also inProceedings of 11th >>> Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and >>> Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and >>> Moed, H. F., Eds. (2007) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17142/ >>> >>> Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R.J., Wilczynski, N. L. and >>> Haynes, R. B. (2008) Prediction of citation counts for clinical >>> articles at two years using data available within three weeks of >>> publication: retrospective cohort study BMJ, 2008;336:655-657 >>> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/336/7645/655 >>> >>> Moed, H. F. (2005) Statistical Relationships Between Downloads and >>> Citations at the Level of Individual Documents Within a Single >>> Journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and >>> Technology 56(10): 1088- 1097 >>> >>> O'Leary, D. E. (2008) The relationship between citations and number of >>> downloads Decision Support Systems 45(4): 972-980 >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.03.008 >>> >>> Watson, A. B. (2009) Comparing citations and downloads for individual >>> articles Journal of Vision 9(4): 1-4 http://journalofvision.org/9/4/i/ >> >