 |
 |
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM, leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Stevan is right. I mistook delayed [Gold] OA for Green OA. Please accept > my apologies. > > It is, however, practically impossible to verify Stevan's figures for the > Netherlands. Dutch academic repositories collect indistinctly Green and > Gold articles, may include other OA stuff like doctoral theses, student > theses, course ware, powerpoints, datasets, blogs, newspaper contributions, > and some also include metadata only. Mandates only seem to work for > doctoral theses, with an national OA coverage of 80% (2010). Five > universities do have mandates for all publications, but that is not > reflected in a higher Gold + Green percentage. The national OA everage for > articles is about 20%, with a variation of plus or minus 10%. > (1) Our study comparing deposit rate with mandate strength is just as applicable to Netherlands as to any other country. It is based on data in ROARMAP and ROAR. (The global average agrees with Leo's estimate of the Netherlands average of 20% (+/- 10%). (2) For the deposit/mandate-strength correlation it is not necessary to distinguish Green deposits from Gold ones, but the Gold ones can be distinguished, if one wishes, based on whether the journal is registered in DOAJ. (3) Our deposit/mandate-strength correlations did not distinguish deposit types (articles, thesis, data, metadata) because ROAR cannot yet distinguish deposit types, but the most plausible interpretation of a significant positive correlation is that stronger mandates increase full-text article deposits, whatever their proportion among all deposits, because the mandates are specifically to deposit article full-texts (not theses, data or metadata). (4) Mandates work whether they are for theses or for articles, if the mandates are strong ones. That's the point of our findings. I was not aware that 5 Netherlands universities have Green OA mandates, eo. Only Erasmus U's mandate is registered in ROARMAP: Could you please tell me which are these 5 universities (or encourage them to register their mandates directly)? Many thanks, Stevan > Leo. > > > Op 28-10-2012 22:25, Stevan Harnad schreef: > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > A good insight in OA versus non-OA publishing and, within OA, about >> Green versus Gold may be gained from a recent BMC-article<http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124>"Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and >> internal structure" bij Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk. >> > > That Laakso & Björk article calculates the annual proportion of articles > indexed by WoS and SCOPUS that are published in Gold OA journals (about 12% > in 2011). (An additional 5% defined as "delayed Gold," embargoed for up to > a year, seems to be credited to the wrong year: An article is only OA when > it is OA.) > > L & B provide no evidence about Green versus Gold (so I'm not sure what > insight Leo has in mind). Unmandated Green OA (24%) is at least twice > annual Gold OA annually, and mandated Green OA (70%+) is six times annual > Gold OA. > > The only Green vs Gold insight I can discern in this is that > universities and funders should mandate Green OA, now, instead of waiting > for Gold OA -- or double-paying for Gold pre-emptively, as the Finch Report > proposes doing (on the basis of the Finch Hypothesis that Green OA mandates > are ineffective -- which is precisely what our new data refute...). > > Stevan Harnad > > >> Op 28-10-2012 12:57, Stevan Harnad schreef: >> >> On 2012-10-28, at 6:44 AM, David Wojick <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Stevan, did you verify that the deposits were actual articles? In many >> cases the records counted by ROAR are metadata or other items. For example >> Cambridge is listed as very large but it has almost no articles. Does ROAR >> log actual articles separately? I have not seen that in their data but may >> have missed it. >> >> >> David, you are quite right to ask this question, and the answer is no: >> >> 1. ROAR <http://openaccess.eprints.org> does not yet have a reliable >> way to determine whether a deposit is the full-text of a refereed journal >> article or just the metadata (or some other kind of content). >> >> 2. However, we do have a robot that can sample and test that with high >> accuracy <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/262220/1/sigdet.gif>, and one >> natural follow-up study is to use the robot to estimate what proportion of >> repository content is full-text journal articles. >> >> 3. In a prior study we have already used the robot to confirm about 70%<http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636> full-text >> deposit for the oldest and strongest mandates. >> >> 4. Meanwhile, however, whatever that full-text percentage is globally, >> it seems reasonable to suppose that it is roughly the same across >> repositories: hence an increase in the average number of deposits means an >> increase in full-text deposits, whatever the average full-text percentage >> is. >> >> 5. The mandates in question are full-text deposit deposit mandates: *they >> are not fulfilled by depositing metadata alone (or other kinds of content). >> * >> >> 6. Hence it seems reasonable to suppose that if the deposit rate is >> higher, the stronger the mandate, the increase is in full-text deposits, >> not just metadata (or other kinds of content), regardless of the baseline >> proportion of full-text across repositories. >> >> 7. To suppose otherwise would be to suppose a rather complicated and *ad >> hoc* form of bias: that the institutions which tend to adopt stronger >> Green OA mandates are also the institutions which tend to have higher >> deposit rates already -- and/or deposit rates with full-text ratios >> systematically different from the global average. >> >> 8. We did test for bias in university webomtrics rankings<http://www.webometrics.info> associated >> with mandate strength, but found none. >> >> >> (You are quite right about the enormous number of deposits -- 216,692, >> mostly not articles -- in the Cambridge repository<http://roar.eprints.org/390/>. This >> did not enter into our analysis because (a) Cambridge has no mandate at >> all. Moreover, (b) Cambridge does not rank highly in the medium deposit >> rate<http://roar.eprints.org/cgi/roar_search/advanced?location_country=&software=&type=institutional&order=-activity_medium/-date> ranking >> that ROAR considers most closely matched to annual university article >> output: This suggests that Cambridge is uploading huge batches of some sort >> of data rarely, rather than regularly depositing approximately the number >> of articles that universities produce across the year.) >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> >> >> On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at >> 1:44 PM, CHARLES OPPENHEIM <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> This is a significant and important set of findings, which should be >>> forwarded on to decision-makers, both in Universities and in funding >>> agencies. >>> >>> More like this, please Stevan >>> >>> Professor Charles Oppenheim >>> >> >> More on the way. >> >> But meanwhile, OA advocates, *please do forward these findings on >> mandate strength to decision-makers at your university and funding agencies >> *. >> >> It's now more important than ever to make sure that OA policy decisions >> are evidence-based, especially to counter the extensive negative effects of >> the publishing lobby, as most dramatically exerted very recently on the Finch >> Report and the resulting RCUK policy<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342580/1/harnad-cilip.pdf> >> . >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> >>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>> *Sent:* Friday, 26 October 2012, 18:59 >>> *Subject:* OA Week: Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate >>> Effectiveness >>> >>> In June 2012, the UK Finch Committee made the following statement: >>> >>> *"The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders nor universities >>> themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that researchers make >>> their publications accessible in institutional repositories…"* *[Finch >>> Committee Recommendation, June 2012<http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf> >>> ]** * >>> >>> * >>> * >>> *Testing the Finch Hypothesis* >>> We have now tested the Finch Hypothesis. Using data from ROARMAP >>> institutional Green OA mandates and data from ROAR on institutional >>> repositories, we found that deposit number and rate is significantly >>> correlated with mandate strength (classified as 1-12): The stronger the >>> mandate, the more the deposits. The strongest mandates generate deposit >>> rates of 70%+ within 2 years of adoption, compared to the un-mandated >>> deposit rate of 20%. The effect is already detectable at the national >>> level, where the UK, which has the largest proportion of Green OA mandates, >>> has a national OA rate of 35%, compared to the global baseline of 25%. >>> >>> *Conclusion** >>> *The conclusion is that, contrary to the Finch Hypothesis, Green Open >>> Access Mandates *do* have a major effect, and the stronger the mandate, >>> the stronger the effect (the Liege ID/OA mandate<http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/>, >>> linked to research performance evaluation, being the strongest mandate >>> model). RCUK<http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf> (as >>> well as all universities, research institutions and research funders >>> worldwide) would be well advised to adopt the strongest Green OA mandates >>> and to integrate institutional and funder mandates. >>> The findings are in the link below. *Discussion invited!* >>> Gargouri, Yassine, Lariviere, Vincent, Gingras, Yves, Brody, Tim, Carr, >>> Les and Harnad, Stevan (2012) Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA >>> Mandate Effectiveness <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/344687/>. *Open >>> Access Week 2012* >>> * * >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >