 |
 |
Hi. In case it is not clear, as of course you know, I am a big fan of repositories and support deposit mandates; my only worry here is that we might be missing a trick. To push the cigarette analogy further, banning on-premises smoking has not really had a major effect on individuals smoking, any more than prohibition stopped alcohol consumption or the illegality of other drugs has been effective. On the other hand, the seat belt law has contributed (in the UK) to people wearing seat belts. Perhaps the most interesting parallel (again in the UK) is drink-driving. The law has changed a bit to lower the limit in the last 40 years, but we have moved from a culture of non-compliance to general compliance in many parts of society, such that many young people who tend to be risk-taking now consider it utterly irresponsible to drink and drive. Would that self-archiving was considered such a moral imperative! On 22/03/2010 23:06, "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 22-Mar-10, at 6:14 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > >> The question I am addressing is how to persuade the individual >> author to deposit.... >> Whenever this issue is raised, the discussion moves to persuading >> authors' institutions to mandate deposit. >> I have yet to see a discussion here on specifically persuading the >> individual author to deposit. >> Persuading authors' institutions to mandate deposit is only one of >> the ways, and one that pisses off many researchers, thus having a >> negative effect. >> And then people wonder why there is a problem. > > (1) Mandates piss off many researchers? Where's the data on that? The > data I know of -- Alma Swan's two international, interdisciplinary > author surveys http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ and Arthur Sale's > outcome outcome studies http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/authors/Sale,_AHJ.html > -- found that 95% of authors would comply with a deposit mandate, > 80% of them willingly, 15% of them reluctantly: So is it the 15% > reluctant + 5% noncompliant you mean by "pissed off"? But with 80% > complying willingly, surely we're all incomparably better off than > with the unmandated status quo, in which only 15% deposit at all. I am sorry that you find my anecdotal statement unsupported, and I apologise because it is. But I am sorry to say that I find these figures unconvincing. The 95% figure you quote is the proportion of respondents. But only 3% (811) of the ISI people responded, and even for ECS it was only 15% (35). We can only speculate, of course, on which groups responded, but it is hard for me to see this as a study of people who choose not to self-archive or comply with mandates. It is the other 85% or more that I would like to know what their attitudes are, and for those who feel negative, why? I have to say that I find it disappointing that Alma Swan's paper, to which you refer, does not (as far as I can tell) report the respondent rate; you have to go to the full report. Had they done so, a 3% response rate from their randomly-selectedı population might have suggested that this is not the paper that I would base my policies on. And it is not even clear that the randomly-selectedı population does not significantly overlap with the interested and informedı population. By the way, lest I be thought to be against archiving, the paper itself is a strong argument for good archiving, and even the archiving of data associated with studies. Of the three URIs to the full report: http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/2005_Open_Access_Report.p df http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open%20Access%20Self%20Archiving- an%20author%20study.pdf http://cogprints.org/4385/ Only the last of those is still there, enabling me to find this data.. So I find your figure of 95% of authors rather problematical. The Arthur Sale URI you provide seems to be a list of possible papers. I did not look at them all. I was attracted to "A researcher's viewpoint. In: Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects", but this did not seem to report any studies that supported the arguments therein. Si there something in this list that will actually provide any experimental data from the people who have chosen to have nothing to do with the activity? > > Besides, how many of those who were initially reluctant at the world's > first deposit mandate (ours, here at Southampton ECS!) are still > pissed off, do you think, now that our mandate's in its 2nd half > decade and doing quite swimmingly? That is a really good question. And again, if there are any, why? I could give anecdotal comments, but that would be inappropriate. Wouldn't it be great to know? > > (2) Are you suggesting that we should go back to trying to persuade > the remaining 85% of researchers one by one, as all the world's > universities (minus the c. 100 universities with mandates, including > ours at Southampton, and U. Coll London, and Harvard and MIT) are > still trying to do, year in and year out? > Producing appropriate documents, or facilitating others to do so is not talking to each individual - it is very effective in this modern electronic communication world. What I am suggesting is that if you don't engage with the personal objectives of the individuals whose behaviour you are trying to change, then you will find the whole thing more excruciating than it might otherwise have been. > No one who has been witnessing this excruciatingly slow-mo progress > worldwide for the past two decades could possibly imagine that the > deposit mandates that are at long last beginning to be adopted are the > problem, rather than the solution. The problem now is to get more > universities to adopt the solution sooner rather than later, so that > yet another decade of usage and impact loss does not slide down the > drain, needlessly... Agreed. I have never suggested that the mandates are the problem - I have no idea where you read that in anything I have said, and am genuinely surprised as to where you might have got that from. However, legislation is rarely a painless or even effective way of changing behaviour. When you want to change society you need to also address the deep cultural beliefs of the individuals - finding out what those beliefs are is the first step. > > Chrs, Stevan Fellow travellers on this road, I hope. Not because I care about the open argument - actually I don't much. But because I think that the services that archives provide are so valuable to the individuals, that if only people knew about them they would use them more. I just think we are missing a trick that would make things easier. Hugh > > >> Best >> Hugh >> >> >> On 22/03/2010 19:27, "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]> 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/ >> >> >>