<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Bravo to Dirk and others for their efforts to create reliable full-text deposit metrics<div>for institutional repositories.<div><br></div><div>Let me just stress, though, that -- for our <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/344687/1/finch2.pdf">recent findings</a> on the correlation between</div><div>deposit-mandate-strength and deposits -- the fact that not all deposits are full-texts would</div><div>work against, not for, detecting a correlation: </div><div><br></div><div>The deposit-mandates are all full-text mandates, not metadata-mandates. Hence </div><div>whatever the baseline ratio of full-text deposits to total deposits, a significant increase</div><div>in total deposits with an increase in deposit-mandate strength is far more likely to</div><div>be the result of an increase in full-text deposits than of other kinds of </div><div>content, unrelated to what the deposit-mandate is mandating.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, it would be splendid if repositories provided clearer and fuller</div><div>metadata to indicate full-text deposits (and, in particular, full-text deposits</div><div>of peer-reviewed research articles).</div><div><br></div><div>Eprints and Dspace developers (and IR managers): Attention!</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 2012-10-30, at 7:56 AM, Dirk Pieper <<a href="mailto:dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de">dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Seb,<br><br>the correct term for the "Number of documents" line should be "Number of <br>OAI PMH metadata records", but outside the information professional <br>world nobody will understand this I suppose. BASE is harvesting OAI <br>metadata only.<br><br>You are adressing a very important question: what is the ratio of OAI <br>metadata and Open Access full texts?<br><br>Of course there are repositories, which provide 100% open access, but on <br>the other hand we see that repositories are becoming more and more <br>platforms for exposing the whole publication output of an institution. <br>So it would be great, if repository managers would use setSPEC <br>information about open access to documents more often (there are enough <br>guidelines from DARE, DINI, DRIVER, OpenAire, ...).<br><br>We are trying to indicate real open access to documents within BASE <br>soon, but I fear that we can indicate this information only for a small <br>portion of the metadata.<br><br>Best<br>Dirk<br><br><br>Am 30.10.2012 10:45, schrieb Seb Schmoller:<br><blockquote type="cite">Dirk,<br>In the chart does the "Number of documents" line represent "full text<br>records" or "full text records and metadata only records", and if the<br>latter is there easily extractable data for each? (Apologies if these<br>terms are not strictly accurate.)<br>Seb Schmoller<br><br>On 30/10/2012 08:14, Dirk Pieper wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br><br>BASE has currently indexed 2.356 repositories, which is more than<br>OpenDoar but less than ROAR have listed.<br><br>This page shows the growth since 2004:<br><br><a href="http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2">http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2</a><br><br>Because we administer the BASE repository list every week when updating<br>the index, we can assure, that there are not so many skeletons in the<br>BASE index.<br><br>Best<br>Dirk<br><br><br>Am 30.10.2012 07:54, schrieb Richard Poynder:<br><blockquote type="cite">Thanks for this Heather.<br><br>I think your figures come from OpenDoar<br>(http://www.opendoar.org/index.html), which currently appears to list 2,217<br>repositories. Meanwhile ROAR (http://roar.eprints.org/) lists 2,993.<br><br>With regard specifically to BMC's Open Repository service, OpenDoar lists 20<br>repositories that use the service (0.9% of the market), whereas ROAR lists<br>18 (0.6%).<br><br>BMC itself lists 22 organisations that use its Open Repository services<br>(http://www.openrepository.com/customers).<br><br>Richard Poynder<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] On Behalf<br>Of Heather Morrison<br>Sent: 29 October 2012 21:48<br>To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select<br>Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation<br><br>Open Repository is just one repository service.<br><br>The numbers for total growth of open repositories in total are much more<br>relevant. Since 2006, the numbers of open repositories around the world have<br>increased from just over 800 to over 2,200 (nearly tripling in numbers), as<br>illustrated in this growth chart in the most recent Dramatic Growth of Open<br>Access:<br>http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/thank-you-open-access-movement.ht<br>ml<br><br>The repository numbers per se are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.<br>Some of the repositories up and running in 2004 were in early pilot phases.<br>It takes time to get such a service up and running, develop and find support<br>for an institutional open access policy, educate faculty and students about<br>this new service, and fill the repository. In the past 8 years or so, we<br>have gone from a point where a very few institutions had early repositories<br>to a point where I would argue that an IR is a "must-have" to be taken<br>seriously as a research institution.<br><br>The situation in British Columbia (where I work) very much reflects this. In<br>2004, only the largest institutions either had pilot IRs or IRs in the<br>planning stages. Today, there are a number of very actively promoted IRs.<br>Currently, what we are discussing at BC Electronic Library Network is a<br>collaborative approach to ensure that all BC post-secondaries have access to<br>this important service.<br><br>best,<br><br>Heather Morrison<br>pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/<br><br>On 2012-10-29, at 12:53 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Richard,<br><br>The best person to ask about Open Repository would be Matt Cockerill,<br></blockquote>director at BMC.<br><blockquote type="cite">I think you use the right term when you say that publishers 'allow'<br></blockquote>self-archiving. Too often I see that interpreted as 'endorse', but that is a<br>very different thing in my view (and theirs, too, I guess).<br><blockquote type="cite">Jan<br><br>On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:40, Richard Poynder wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Thanks for the clarification Jan.<br><br>I wonder if anyone from BMC could update the list on how popular the Open<br></blockquote></blockquote>Repository service has proved, whether users are currently growing or<br>decreasing, and how many users there are at the moment etc.?<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">By the way, this is what BMC founder Vitek Tracz said to me in December<br></blockquote></blockquote>2004<br>(http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html).<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">RP: One further complication that could perhaps retard progress is that<br></blockquote></blockquote>the OA movement has forked, with advocates disagreeing over the best way<br>forward. While OA publishers like you advocate OA publishing (the so-called<br>"Gold Road" to OA) supporters of the "Green Road" like Stevan Harnad argue<br>that it is sufficient for authors to continue publishing in traditional<br>subscription-based journals, but to then self-archive their papers. Does<br>Harnad have a point?<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">VT: I do not think so. Self-archiving is of course very desirable, but<br></blockquote></blockquote>the issue is quite simple: publishers are not really going to allow authors<br>to self-archive in an easy way, and authors are not going to do it unless it<br>is completely painless.<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">RP: I'm told that around 93% of journals currently do allow<br></blockquote></blockquote>self-archiving?<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">VT: They say they allow it, but publishers have merely created the<br></blockquote></blockquote>pretence of allowing it. They don't really. They say they allow<br>self-archiving, but authors can't just take their published papers and<br>archive them: they have to use their original manuscript, without any of the<br>corrections and changes made by the publisher. They have to mark it up<br>themselves, and they cannot use the illustrations created or amended by the<br>publisher. In practice it is really quite difficult to reproduce the<br>published paper.<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If self-archiving were so easy why isn't it happening? Because in<br></blockquote></blockquote>practice self-archiving is impractical. That said, for those who want it<br>BioMed Central supports self-archiving by offering to help institutions<br>create repositories for their researchers' papers.<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Richard Poynder<br><br><br>From: goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] On<br></blockquote></blockquote>Behalf Of Jan Velterop<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Sent: 29 October 2012 11:07<br>To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select<br></blockquote></blockquote>Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our offering<br></blockquote></blockquote>was launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out was more<br>like a happy coincidence.<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as a<br></blockquote></blockquote>result of the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually offering<br>concrete assistance to repositories some time *after* we realised the<br>importance of repositories' role? Well, in our case the realisation came<br>quite some time before we offered the service. These things take<br>preparation, you know. Extraordinary, isn't it?<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance of<br></blockquote></blockquote>repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda Statement on<br>Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC.<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we did try<br></blockquote></blockquote>to convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC<br>journals. Calling that "Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred journals<br>in favour of Gold OA journals" is spin. Were I to use similar spin, I could<br>say something like "the Green OA advocates are lobbying for authors to be<br>mandated to deposit their manuscripts in repositories, and be forced to<br>accept sub-optimal OA, with access delays, technical and usage limitations,<br>and problematic financing of publishing via subscriptions."<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate.<br></blockquote></blockquote>Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great.<br>Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their collections<br>as well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold' is not antithetical<br>to repositories. I don't think it is good, though, to be satisfied with<br>sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency.<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Jan<br><br>On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:<br><br><br><br>On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:<br><br><br><br>Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals<br></blockquote></blockquote>was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for<br>at the time<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What<br></blockquote></blockquote>we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still<br>advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access<br>publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised<br>that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open<br>access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories,<br>and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its<br></blockquote></blockquote>repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry?<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913<br><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>