Thanks Stevan,
I think you make the point very effective;ly.
The question I am addressing is how to persuade the individual author to deposit.
This was the issue raised.
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.
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/
|
