 |
 |
On 22-Mar-10, at 6:28 PM, leo waaijers wrote: > (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. Because there are many, many academics to persuade one by one, and far fewer rectors: For every rector you persuade to mandate, you get thousands of academics and tens of thousands of deposits. With individual academics, you just get a sore throat, like the chronic one I've developed over the past two decades... ;>)-O- > > 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]> 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/ >>> >>