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]>
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/
