[GOAL] Re: Fwd: What is Green Open Access and how is it practised? Some questions

[Jiadi Yao]

Hi Peter,

I have been working on institutional publication collaboration and have 
some data maybe useful to you.

  The proportion is discipline dependent, but university is always the 
major contributor:

Computer science (ACM publications from 1950-2010)
University 62%
Research Institutes 5%
Company 19%
Unknown 14% (Missing or unable to recognise)

Pharmacology (ISI from 1973-2011)
Company 13%
Research Institute 28%
University 60%

Material Science (ISI from 1973-2011)
Company 2.5%
Research Institute 10%
University 87.5%

Law (ISI from 1973-2011)
Company 0%
Research Institute 15%
University 85%

Psycology (ISI from 1973-2011)
Company 0%
Research Institute 10%
University 90%

Please not that these proportions are authorship percentages, i.e. 90% 
of university means 90% of author is affiliated with an university.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Best
Jiadi

On 02/05/2012 17:57, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Hi Jiadi, could you post your findings on the following to goal, please:
>
>
>>> 7 What proportion of publications come from "Universities" or other
>>> organizations that potentially support self-archiving infrastructure?
>>>     [I guess about 80%. Publications from industry, research 
>>> institutions,
>>> hospitals, field stations, etc. should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or
>>> substandard.]
>>
>> Don't know. Preumably depends on the discipline.
>>
>> Les Carr's and my student, Jiadi Yao, has some limited data on the
>> proportion of university, research institute and corporate research in
>> some fields. I will ask him to post. (I agree that refereed research
>> from all sources is relevant, and the standard depends on the
>> peer-review standards of the journal that accepts it.)
>
> Thanks, S
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:amsciforum at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *May 2, 2012 12:10:39 PM EDT
>> *To: *"Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
>> <goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
>> *Subject: **Re: What is Green Open Access and how is it practised? 
>> Some questions*
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:pm286 at cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>> If we are being pragmatic, it is necessary to know the facts on which we
>>> base our strategy.
>>>
>>> I will publicly admit that I do not understand the goals of "Green Open
>>> Access".
>>>
>>>  I would like to ask a set of (hopefully simple) factual questions about
>>> Green. Please humour me by only answering the questions. I may have 
>>> wrong
>>> assumptions - that why I am asking.
>>>
>>> 1 does Green OA require the archival of complete published fulltext?
>>>     [My assumption is YES]
>>
>> Yes, the author's refereed final draft or higher.
>>
>>> 2 does Green OA depend on publishers agreeing to authors self-archiving
>>> their manuscripts?
>>>     [My assumption is YES]
>>
>> No. It depends on authors self-archiving their manuscripts.
>>
>>> 3 is there any "official organization" that *formally* negotiates 
>>> Green OA
>>> with publishers?
>>>     [My assumption is NO]
>>
>> No. But the majority of journals (and almost all the top ones) already
>> endorse immediate Green OA.
>>
>>> 4 what percentage of publishers currently forbid Green OA as defined 
>>> in Q1?
>>>     [My assumption is about 40%]
>>
>> About 35% of journals, about 40% of publishers.
>>
>>> 5 How many institutions do Green OA mandates potentially apply to?
>>>     [I estimate between 1000 and 10000]
>>
>> All research institutions (universities and research institutes)
>> worldwide, which is presumably at least as many as the higher
>> figure...
>>
>>> 6 Is there one or more global organization *formally* coordinating these
>>> institutions?
>>>     [I suspect NO]
>>
>> No. They are an anarchic network, like the Web. (But the repositories
>> are at least OAI-interoperable.)
>>
>>> 7 What proportion of publications come from "Universities" or other
>>> organizations that potentially support self-archiving infrastructure?
>>>     [I guess about 80%. Publications from industry, research 
>>> institutions,
>>> hospitals, field stations, etc. should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or
>>> substandard.]
>>
>> Don't know. Preumably depends on the discipline.
>>
>> Les Carr's and my student, Jiadi Yao, has some limited data on the
>> proportion of university, research institute and corporate research in
>> some fields. I will ask him to post. (I agree that refereed research
>> from all sources is relevant, and the standard depends on the
>> peer-review standards of the journal that accepts it.)
>>
>>> 8. How many institutions currently offer Green OA?
>>>     [I think Peter Suber recently suggested about 1500 have repos].
>>
>> ROAR has the current figures for repositories. (But most are
>> unmandated, and hence only contain a small percentage of the
>> full-texts of the institution's total annual refereed research
>> output.)
>>
>>> 9 what is the current full economic cost of a self-archived 
>>> manuscript in a
>>> (a) UK University? (b) Elsewhere?
>>>     [see below]
>>
>> Negligibly small, per paper. And would be even smaller if the
>> repositories were mandated, hence full, rather than unmandated, and
>> near empty.
>>
>>> 10. Is there any agreed mechanism for (a) humans (b) machines to 
>>> tell that
>>> an object in a repo is a Green manuscript?
>>>     [I assume MAYBE for (a) and NO for (b)]
>>
>> A human can certainly tell, by inspection. No mechanism for machines
>> yet, as far as I know (though it's feasible). But as long as the
>> percentage OA is a sparse as it is, it's hardly urgent to develop such
>> a mechanism. What's urgent is to mandate deposit.
>>
>>> 11. Is there any SIMPLE way of finding all Green manuscripts across all
>>> repos?  [I assume NO.]
>>
>> Not yet. Nor is it urgent, while OA content is so sparse. But it's
>> feasible. The much more urgent priority is mandating deposit of the
>> content.
>>
>>> 12. How is the compliance of authors in depositing Green OA measured? By
>>> whom? [I assume this has to be done by an institution and this 
>>> requires them
>>> to (a) know how many publications have been published by "their 
>>> staff" and
>>> (b) know how many are in the repo. I assume it is the aggregation of 
>>> these
>>> figures that gives the "20%" green figure.
>>
>> Most institutions are not systematically measuring this yet, but
>> samples have been tested webwide (and not just for repositories, but
>> also authors' websites) and 20% seems to be a good ballpark figure.
>>
>> Mandated repositories are more likely to measure annual deposit rate,
>> and effectively implemented mandates (like Southampton ECS, QUT, Minho
>> and Liege) capture over 70% of their annual refereed research output.
>>
>>> 13 How many institutions know and publish metrics of Green deposition
>>> including a percentage of the possible?.
>>
>> For the vast majority of institutions that lack mandates, this
>> percentage would not be very useful. Yassine Gargouri is doing %OA
>> analyses for the institutions with effective mandates, and comparing
>> them with weak and no mandates.
>>
>>> 14. The goal of Green OA is, as I understand it, for all 
>>> Universities [sic]
>>> to put copies of all their peer-reviewed publications into a 
>>> professionally
>>> supported Institutional repository. YES/NO
>>
>> All research institutions, which includes universities, research
>> institutes and corporate R&D centres.
>>
>>> 15. Can Green OA deliver 100% of the scholarly literature [sic]?
>>>   [I assume NO].
>>
>> Yes, if all institutions and funders mandate Green OA.
>>
>>>       If not what is a figure that proponents would feel represented 
>>> a major
>>> positive outcome ("success")?
>>
>> If all institutions and funders adopt (effective) Green OA mandates,
>> close to 100% of refereed research would be OA. That's the only
>> outcome worth aiming for.
>>
>>> [*] I think PeterS suggested about 1.5-5 FTEs per IR. Assume 2, and cost
>>> each at 100K USD Full economic costs. I trawled UK Universities and 
>>> found
>>> that they had between 500 and 10000 items. Not all of these are final
>>> manuscripts - some are theses (although these are so heterogeneously
>>> archived it's almost impossible to know) and some are other artifacts.
>>> Assume 1000 deposits per year (and I think that is optimistic) and 
>>> you get
>>> over 100USD per manuscript, not including researcher time. I don't think
>>> that this reduces dramatically by volume as many manuscripts require
>>> assistance from the repo staff.
>>
>> Repositories are created and used for other purposes than OA. But even
>> if they were just for OA, the cost per paper for an unmandated
>> repository is uninformative, except to show that a repository is not
>> worth much unless deposit is mandated.
>>
>> For a repository that is capturing 100% of its annual research output,
>> the cost per paper deposited is negligibly small.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120502/97ec4e0c/attachment-0001.html