 |
 |
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/