JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  July 2009

JISC-REPOSITORIES July 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Eprint request button - data on effectiveness

From:

Michael White <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michael White <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:02:19 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (169 lines)

Hi,

Just back from holiday so thought I would pitch in with some (admittedly rough and ready) figures from our repository here at Stirling - STORRE (http://storre.stir.ac.uk).

Note: This analysis is in no way rigorous or scientific, but hopefully some of the numbers shed some light on usage and behaviour with respect to the "Request a copy" functionality here at Stirling :-)

We are using DSpace and added an embargo facility along with the "Request a copy" functionality back in June 2007 (originally to support our eTheses mandate and enable us to handle eTheses which were un-officially embargoed whilst the author prepared articles etc for publication, but obviously now enabling us to support our "Immediate Deposit/Optional Access" mandate for Journal Articles which has been in effect since September 2008).

The majority of content in STORRE has been added since Sept 08, so the usage figures for the "request a copy" functionality prior to that are fairly negligible, so, along with figures on the totals since June 2007, I've also provided figures for the second half of 2008 and the first half of 2009 to give some indication on how usage has grown relative to total content.

=======================================================================
Total number of items in STORRE on 28th July 2009:             1276
Total number of embargoed items in STORRE on 28th July 2009:   416 (33%)

Total since June 2007 (to 28th July 2009)
---------------------
Total requests:	 	397
Requests accepted:	206	52%
Requests rejected:	15	4%
No response:		176	44%

Second half of 2008 (01/07/08 - 31/12/08)
-------------------
No. of items in STORRE at start of period:	281
No. of items in STORRE at end of period:		512
Total requests:		82
Requests accepted:	36	44%
Requests rejected:	6	7%
No response:		40	49%

First half of 2009 (01/01/09 - 30/06/09)
------------------
No. of items in STORRE at start of period:	512
No. of items in STORRE at end of period:		1202
Total requests:		247
Requests accepted:	131	53%
Requests rejected:	7	3%
No response:		109	43%

So from that one *might* generalise that just over a half of requests are currently being accepted, a small number are rejected, and just under half get no response. 

With respect to the "no responses", one factor will be embargoed PhD theses. Submitting PhD students log on to STORRE using their University network credentials (STORRE then automatically creates an account for them, determines they are a PhD student and what department they are from, and provides them with appropriate deposit permissions). This "auto-created" account is based on their University email address, and this email account only remains live for a short while after the student leaves the University (which they generally do once they've completed their PhD!) - this means that many requests for embargoed eTheses will probably be going into a black hole. I have created a facility to enable us to specify a different email address for the request to go to, but we, or the user, generally need to be aware of the problem before an email address is updated - looking for a better solution to this issue is on my "to do" list :-)

It would be interesting to investigate these "no responses" further (how many are eTheses, how many are deliberately ignored, and why etc), but time doesn't allow for that at the moment . . . 

Once I had generated the figures for the first half of 2009, I was interested to see if the data was uniform across this period, so I also did a breakdown of the figures for each month, and I also include these here for info/interest/completeness.

These suggest that the "no response" rates are higher during semester breaks (we start mid February) - presumably because less staff are around to respond to them, but this is just supposition . . . Or perhaps these figures suggest that the general trend for the "no response" rate is downwards, indicating that staff are becoming more familiar with this facility . . . ?

January 2009
------------
Total requests:		18
Requests accepted:	4	22%
Requests rejected:	0	0%
No response:		14	78%

February 2009
-------------
Total requests:		23
Requests accepted:	8	35%
Requests rejected:	2	8.5%
No response:		13	56.5%

March 2009
----------
Total requests:		44
Requests accepted:	29	66%
Requests rejected:	0	0%
No response:		15	34%

April 2009
----------
Total requests:		51	
Requests accepted:	32	63%
Requests rejected:	1	2%
No response:		18	35%

May 2009
--------
Total requests:		66
Requests accepted:	30	45.5%
Requests rejected:	0	0%
No response:		36	54.5%

June 2009
---------
Total requests:		45
Requests accepted:	28	62%
Requests rejected:	4	9%
No response:		13	29%

If I had the time, it would be interesting to dig a little deeper into these figures, and the human factors behind them, but that'll have to wait for the time being! Definitely a little advocacy on responding to these requests wouldn't go amiss though, so, maybe now that I've seen these figures, this is something we'll try to raise awareness of internally - it would be good to run this analysis again in a year's time and see a much better response rate :-).

And to address the original poster's concerns:

> In the handful of times I've used such a button, I have gotten either 
> no response or have been declined.

From the data it would seem that you won't be alone in this experience, and, certainly with regard to STORRE, your best bet is to make these requests during term time ;-). Seriously though, I think/hope that as academics get more accustomed to using this facility, response rates will improve (and possibly already are).

This has been a useful/interesting exercise for me (thanks for asking the question!), and I hope the above is of some use/interest to others.

Regards,

Mike
Joint STORRE Manager

Michael White 
eLearning Developer
Centre for eLearning Development (CeLD) 
3V3a, Cottrell
University of Stirling 
Stirling SCOTLAND 
FK9 4LA 

Email: [log in to unmask] 
Tel: +44 (0) 1786 466877 
Fax: +44 (0) 1786 466880 

http://www.is.stir.ac.uk/celd/


-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 20 July 2009 00:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eprint request button - data on effectiveness

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Gavin Baker wrote:

> Dr. Harnad,
>
> I know you are an advocate for the "eprint request button" for 
> repositories. Do you know of any studies or data on how widespread use 
> of these buttons is, and how frequently such requests are granted?
>
> In the handful of times I've used such a button, I have gotten either 
> no response or have been declined.

Dear Gavin,

Apologies for the delay in responding.

I don't have any data yet. I've branched your query to the EPrints and DSpace lists. Perhaps someone may already have some data.

My guess is that it is too early for informative stats. The instances are too few; the practice is not yet widesread enough, so authors are really not entirely clear on what they are doing. (Neither are most IR
managers.)

However, I thin this will be changing, as more deposit mandates are adopted, and the logic of the ID/OA Mandate (Immediate Deposit, Optional
Access: Either immediate OA, or Closed Access plus Button) becomes better understood. Then IRs will clearly inform their authors about best practice, and both the IDOA Mandate and the Button will at last come into their own.

Although OA and OA policy are in fact very simple and straightforward, they are apparently novel enough, relative to what authors have been doing for decades, that it takes more time than one (and certainly I!) might have expected for the message to get through, and understood, and put into practice.

Or so I am told, anyway, by those who keep advising me to be patient!

Best wishes,

Stevan


> --
> Gavin Baker
> http://www.gavinbaker.com/

-- 
Academic Excellence at the Heart of Scotland.
The University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland, 
 number SC 011159.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager