Bravo to Dirk and others for their efforts to create reliable full-text deposit metrics for institutional repositories. Let me just stress, though, that -- for our recent findings on the correlation between deposit-mandate-strength and deposits -- the fact that not all deposits are full-texts would work against, not for, detecting a correlation: The deposit-mandates are all full-text mandates, not metadata-mandates. Hence whatever the baseline ratio of full-text deposits to total deposits, a significant increase in total deposits with an increase in deposit-mandate strength is far more likely to be the result of an increase in full-text deposits than of other kinds of content, unrelated to what the deposit-mandate is mandating. That said, it would be splendid if repositories provided clearer and fuller metadata to indicate full-text deposits (and, in particular, full-text deposits of peer-reviewed research articles). Eprints and Dspace developers (and IR managers): Attention! Stevan Harnad On 2012-10-30, at 7:56 AM, Dirk Pieper <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Seb, > > the correct term for the "Number of documents" line should be "Number of > OAI PMH metadata records", but outside the information professional > world nobody will understand this I suppose. BASE is harvesting OAI > metadata only. > > You are adressing a very important question: what is the ratio of OAI > metadata and Open Access full texts? > > Of course there are repositories, which provide 100% open access, but on > the other hand we see that repositories are becoming more and more > platforms for exposing the whole publication output of an institution. > So it would be great, if repository managers would use setSPEC > information about open access to documents more often (there are enough > guidelines from DARE, DINI, DRIVER, OpenAire, ...). > > We are trying to indicate real open access to documents within BASE > soon, but I fear that we can indicate this information only for a small > portion of the metadata. > > Best > Dirk > > > Am 30.10.2012 10:45, schrieb Seb Schmoller: >> Dirk, >> In the chart does the "Number of documents" line represent "full text >> records" or "full text records and metadata only records", and if the >> latter is there easily extractable data for each? (Apologies if these >> terms are not strictly accurate.) >> Seb Schmoller >> >> On 30/10/2012 08:14, Dirk Pieper wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> BASE has currently indexed 2.356 repositories, which is more than >>> OpenDoar but less than ROAR have listed. >>> >>> This page shows the growth since 2004: >>> >>> http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2 >>> >>> Because we administer the BASE repository list every week when updating >>> the index, we can assure, that there are not so many skeletons in the >>> BASE index. >>> >>> Best >>> Dirk >>> >>> >>> Am 30.10.2012 07:54, schrieb Richard Poynder: >>>> Thanks for this Heather. >>>> >>>> I think your figures come from OpenDoar >>>> (http://www.opendoar.org/index.html), which currently appears to list 2,217 >>>> repositories. Meanwhile ROAR (http://roar.eprints.org/) lists 2,993. >>>> >>>> With regard specifically to BMC's Open Repository service, OpenDoar lists 20 >>>> repositories that use the service (0.9% of the market), whereas ROAR lists >>>> 18 (0.6%). >>>> >>>> BMC itself lists 22 organisations that use its Open Repository services >>>> (http://www.openrepository.com/customers). >>>> >>>> Richard Poynder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>>> Of Heather Morrison >>>> Sent: 29 October 2012 21:48 >>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select >>>> Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation >>>> >>>> Open Repository is just one repository service. >>>> >>>> The numbers for total growth of open repositories in total are much more >>>> relevant. Since 2006, the numbers of open repositories around the world have >>>> increased from just over 800 to over 2,200 (nearly tripling in numbers), as >>>> illustrated in this growth chart in the most recent Dramatic Growth of Open >>>> Access: >>>> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/thank-you-open-access-movement.ht >>>> ml >>>> >>>> The repository numbers per se are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. >>>> Some of the repositories up and running in 2004 were in early pilot phases. >>>> It takes time to get such a service up and running, develop and find support >>>> for an institutional open access policy, educate faculty and students about >>>> this new service, and fill the repository. In the past 8 years or so, we >>>> have gone from a point where a very few institutions had early repositories >>>> to a point where I would argue that an IR is a "must-have" to be taken >>>> seriously as a research institution. >>>> >>>> The situation in British Columbia (where I work) very much reflects this. In >>>> 2004, only the largest institutions either had pilot IRs or IRs in the >>>> planning stages. Today, there are a number of very actively promoted IRs. >>>> Currently, what we are discussing at BC Electronic Library Network is a >>>> collaborative approach to ensure that all BC post-secondaries have access to >>>> this important service. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> Heather Morrison >>>> pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ >>>> >>>> On 2012-10-29, at 12:53 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> >>>>> The best person to ask about Open Repository would be Matt Cockerill, >>>> director at BMC. >>>>> I think you use the right term when you say that publishers 'allow' >>>> self-archiving. Too often I see that interpreted as 'endorse', but that is a >>>> very different thing in my view (and theirs, too, I guess). >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:40, Richard Poynder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the clarification Jan. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder if anyone from BMC could update the list on how popular the Open >>>> Repository service has proved, whether users are currently growing or >>>> decreasing, and how many users there are at the moment etc.? >>>>>> By the way, this is what BMC founder Vitek Tracz said to me in December >>>> 2004 >>>> (http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html). >>>>>> RP: One further complication that could perhaps retard progress is that >>>> the OA movement has forked, with advocates disagreeing over the best way >>>> forward. While OA publishers like you advocate OA publishing (the so-called >>>> "Gold Road" to OA) supporters of the "Green Road" like Stevan Harnad argue >>>> that it is sufficient for authors to continue publishing in traditional >>>> subscription-based journals, but to then self-archive their papers. Does >>>> Harnad have a point? >>>>>> VT: I do not think so. Self-archiving is of course very desirable, but >>>> the issue is quite simple: publishers are not really going to allow authors >>>> to self-archive in an easy way, and authors are not going to do it unless it >>>> is completely painless. >>>>>> RP: I'm told that around 93% of journals currently do allow >>>> self-archiving? >>>>>> VT: They say they allow it, but publishers have merely created the >>>> pretence of allowing it. They don't really. They say they allow >>>> self-archiving, but authors can't just take their published papers and >>>> archive them: they have to use their original manuscript, without any of the >>>> corrections and changes made by the publisher. They have to mark it up >>>> themselves, and they cannot use the illustrations created or amended by the >>>> publisher. In practice it is really quite difficult to reproduce the >>>> published paper. >>>>>> If self-archiving were so easy why isn't it happening? Because in >>>> practice self-archiving is impractical. That said, for those who want it >>>> BioMed Central supports self-archiving by offering to help institutions >>>> create repositories for their researchers' papers. >>>>>> Richard Poynder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On >>>> Behalf Of Jan Velterop >>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2012 11:07 >>>>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>>>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select >>>> Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation >>>>>> In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our offering >>>> was launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out was more >>>> like a happy coincidence. >>>>>> Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as a >>>> result of the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually offering >>>> concrete assistance to repositories some time *after* we realised the >>>> importance of repositories' role? Well, in our case the realisation came >>>> quite some time before we offered the service. These things take >>>> preparation, you know. Extraordinary, isn't it? >>>>>> You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance of >>>> repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda Statement on >>>> Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC. >>>>>> The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we did try >>>> to convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC >>>> journals. Calling that "Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred journals >>>> in favour of Gold OA journals" is spin. Were I to use similar spin, I could >>>> say something like "the Green OA advocates are lobbying for authors to be >>>> mandated to deposit their manuscripts in repositories, and be forced to >>>> accept sub-optimal OA, with access delays, technical and usage limitations, >>>> and problematic financing of publishing via subscriptions." >>>>>> But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate. >>>> Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great. >>>> Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their collections >>>> as well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold' is not antithetical >>>> to repositories. I don't think it is good, though, to be satisfied with >>>> sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency. >>>>>> Jan >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals >>>> was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for >>>> at the time >>>>>> Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What >>>> we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still >>>> advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access >>>> publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised >>>> that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open >>>> access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories, >>>> and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com >>>>>> I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its >>>> repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry? >>>>>> http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913 >>>>>>