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  October 2011

JISC-REPOSITORIES October 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: PEER Behavioural Research - Final Report

From:

Steve Hitchcock <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Steve Hitchcock <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:12:56 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (220 lines)

There is a danger in reading too much into the Executive summary of this report, in which the authors may have over-interpreted their own results. Better to read the results in Appendix 3 first hand. This shows that the project was trying to discover what authors did rather than what they think. It also shows the results to be more nuanced than the summary suggests, and therefore more useful too. I would urge readers to go there and draw their own conclusions. 

Steve Hitchcock
WAIS Group, Building 32
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit
Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379

On 11 Oct 2011, at 14:08, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> ** cross-posted **
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Bayer-Schur, Barbara
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> PEER Behavioural Research: Final Report on authors and users vis-a-vis
>> journals and repositories
>> http://www.peerproject.eu/reports/
>> 
>> The specific aim of the behavioural research was to understand the extent to
>> which authors and users are aware of Open Access (OA), the different ways of
>> achieving it, and the (de)motivating factors that influence its uptake.
> 
> Up-to-date evidence of author/user beliefs and practices is always
> welcome, but it has to be pointed out that what we keep learning from
> survey after survey of this sort is the same thing, over and over:
> 
> 1. Authors and users are moderately aware of OA, how to achieve it and
> what its benefits are.
> 
> 2. But users cannot get OA if authors don't provide it, and authors
> have been providing OA spontaneously in insufficient numbers (about
> 15-30%) throughout the two decades it has been possible to provide it.
> 
> 3. The current growth rate of spontaneously provided OA still remains
> far too slow to expect 100% OA to be reached for another two decades.
> 
> 4. Authors and users constantly conflate and confuse author
> self-archiving of articles published in subscription journals (green
> OA) with authors publishing in OA journals (gold OA), with most
> assuming that OA means gold OA (publishing).
> 
> 5. Most journals (and almost all the top journals in every field) are
> subscription journals; gold OA journals are a small minority, mostly
> not the top journals; the few top journals among them charge authors
> for publication; there is little extra money to pay for gold OA
> publication because so much money is locked into paying for
> institutional access to subscription journals.
> 
> 6. Most authors are hesitant about green OA self-archiving because
> they are afraid it is complicated and time consuming, or illegal, or
> it means giving up publishing in their preferred, top journals.
> 
> 7. Most authors haven't the funds to pay for gold OA, nor do they wish
> to give up publishing in their preferred top subscription journals.
> 
> 8. The solution is known, and has been tried, tested and demonstrated
> to be successful in accelerating the growth of OA to 60-70% within 1-2
> years, and approaching 100% within a few years thereafter.
> 
> 9. The solution is for universities and research funders to mandate
> green OA self-archiving by their employees and fundees.
> 
> 10. It would be far better for the growth of OA if -- instead of just
> continuing to survey what authors and users believe, and what they are
> or are not doing -- their institutions and funders were instead guided
> on what needs to be done to ensure that researchers provide it.
> 
> Here are some comments on the PEER reports "Key Conclusions":
> 
>> Key conclusions:
>> 
>> *Over the period of Phases 1 and 2 of the behavioural research the increase
>> in the number of researchers who reported placing a version of their journal
>> article(s) into an Open Access Repository was negligible.
> 
> This confirms, yet again, what has been shown and known by multiple
> surveys in the past decade.
> 
>> *Researchers who associated Open Access with 'self-archiving'
>> were in the minority. Open Access is more likely to be associated with
>> 'self-archiving' (Green Road) by researchers in the Physical sciences &
>> mathematics and the Social sciences, humanities & arts, than those in the
>> Life sciences and Medical sciences who are more likely to associate Open
>> Access with Open Access Journals (Gold Road).
> 
> This confirms, yet again, what has been shown and known by multiple
> surveys in the past decade.
> 
> What is needed is not to keep surveying but to remedy both the
> persistent misunderstandings through university and funder green OA
> mandates.
> 
>> *There is anecdotal evidence that some researchers consider making journal
>> articles accessible via Open Access to be beyond their remit.
> 
> This confirms, yet again, what has been shown and known by multiple
> surveys in the past decade: authors can't afford gold OA, don't want
> to give up their preferred top journals, and  will not provide green
> OA unless it is mandated by their universities and funders (as
> publishing itself is).
> 
>> *Authors tend to be favourable to Open Access and receptive to the benefits
>> of self-archiving in terms of greater readership and wider dissemination of
>> their research, with the caveat that self-archiving does not compromise the
>> pivotal role of the published journal article.
> 
> This confirms, yet again, what has been shown and known by multiple
> surveys in the past decade: authors know that OA increases article
> usage and impact, but they are not prepared to give up publishing in
> their preferred top journals for the sake of providing (gold) OA.
> 
>> *Readers have concerns about the authority of article content and the extent
>> to which it can be cited when the version they have accessed is not the
>> final published version. These concerns are more prevalent where the purpose
>> of reading is to produce a published journal article, and are perceived as
>> less of an issue for other types of reading purpose.
> 
> Users prefer having access to the published version of record. When
> surveyed, they will always confirm this preference.
> 
> But what surveys like this always fail to ask is whether users prefer
> (1) access denial (because their institutions cannot afford a
> subscription to the journal in which an article that they seek was
> published) or (2) access to the author's peer-reviewed, accepted final
> draft (green OA).
> 
> If this question were asked, clearly and directly, the user response
> would be overwhelming: rather the author's final draft (green OA) than
> no access at all (as now).
> 
> (The same is true of authors: They do prefer users to have access to
> the publisher's version of record, but they would overwhelmingly
> prefer users to have access to the peer-reviewed, accepted final draft
> [green OA] rather than no access at all.)
> 
>> *Academic researchers have a conservative set of attitudes, perceptions and
>> behaviours towards the scholarly communication system and do not desire
>> fundamental changes in the way research is currently disseminated and
>> published.
> 
> Researchers want to continue publishing in their preferred top
> peer-reviewed journals. That much is true. The rest of this summary is
> vague interpretation: Neither authors nor users want access-denial.
> Both recognize the benefits of OA. And the vast majority of authors
> can and do provide (green) OA, *willingly* -- if and when it is
> mandated by their institutions or funders.
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/
> 
>> *Open Access Repositories are perceived by researchers as complementary to,
>> rather than replacing, current forums for disseminating and publishing
>> research.
> 
> Correct: Green OA is a supplement to peer-reviewed journal publishing,
> not a substitute for it.
> 
> But green OA repositories remain 70-80% empty of their target content
> until and unless researchers' institutions and funders mandate green
> OA self-archiving.
> 
> The most relevant, concrete and practical finding of the PEER survey
> is not listed among its "Key Conclusions":
> 
> "if institutions were to enforce mandates then researchers would feel
> compelled to prioritise their employer’s mandate..."
> 
> See:
> 
> "Success of U Liege Open Access Mandate Accelerated by Link to
> Performance Assessment"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/737-guid.html
> 
> and
> 
> "Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
> 
> SUMMARY: With the adoption of Open Access Self-Archiving Mandates
> worldwide so near, this is the opportune time to think of optimizing
> how they are formulated. Seemingly small parametric or verbal variants
> can make a vast difference to their success, speed, and completeness
> of coverage:
>     What to mandate: The primary target content is the author's
> final, peer-reviewed draft ("postprint") of all journal articles
> accepted for publication.
>     Why to mandate self-archiving: The purpose of mandating OA
> self-archiving is to maximize research usage and impact by maximizing
> user access to research findings.
>     Where to self-archive: The optimal locus for self-archiving is
> the author's own OAI-compliant Institutional Repository (IR). (It is
> highly inadvisable to mandate direct deposit in a Central Repository
> (CR) -- whether discipline-based, funder-based, multidisciplinary or
> national. The right way to get OA content into CRs is to harvest it
> from the IRs (via the OAI protocol).)
>     When to self-archive: The author's final, peer-reviewed draft
> (postprint) should be deposited in the author's IR immediately upon
> acceptance for publication. (The deposit must be immediate; any
> allowable delay or embargo should apply only to the access-setting,
> i.e., whether access to the deposited article is immediately set to
> Open Access or provisionally set to Closed Access, in which only the
> author can access the deposited text; in either case, the article's
> metadata are immediately accessible webwide, allowing users to request
> eprint copies by email from the author immediately and
> semi-automatically during any embargo period).
>     How to self-archive: Depositing a postprint in an author's IR
> and keying in its metadata (author, title, journal, date, etc.) takes
> less than 10 minutes per paper. Deposit analyses comparing mandated
> and unmandated self-archiving rates have shown that mandates (and only
> mandates) work, with self-archiving approaching 100% of annual
> institutional research output within a few years. Without a mandate,
> IR content just hovers for years at the spontaneous 15% self-archiving
> rate.
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS)
> http://www.openscholarship.org

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