On 22-Mar-10, at 8:46 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:

> In case it is not clear, as of course you know, I am a big fan of
> repositories and support deposit mandates

Well, that's a relief!

> 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!

All we need is universal on-premises self-archiving and we're there;  
no need to mandate what people do in private...

Best not to push analogies over-hard. There's no trick. Mandate  
deposit, institutionally, and we'll all have universal OA at long  
last. That's all there is to it, and all there ever was to it...

> 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 Œrandomly-selected¹
> 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 Œrandomly-selected¹ population  
> does not
> significantly overlap with the Œinterested and informed¹ 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>