[GOAL] Re: What is Green Open Access and how is it practised? Somequestions

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Sally Morris <
sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> **
> I have some statistics pertinent to Question 4.  They date from 2008, but
> I would guess that, if anything, publishers' policies would have become
> more relaxed with regard to self-archiving since then
>
> At that time, over 80% of publishers (as calculated by the number of
> articles they publish, rather than strictly number of publishers) permitted
> self-archiving of the submitted and/or accepted versionto a personal or
> departmental website, over 60% to an institutional repository, and over 40%
> to a subject repository.  Self-archiving of the final, published version
> was, however, very much more restricted at between 5% and 10%
>
> Authors' perception of what they were allowed to do by their publishing
> agreements, however, substantially underestimated the extent to which
> self-archiving was in fact permitted for the 'preprint' version, but
> overestimated the extent to which it was permitted for the final published
> version.
>

many thanks.

I note the complexity of this - different agreements for different types of
manuscript and different allowed places. I doubt there is a single author
who knows what the rules are in any given case across the publishes they
might use.

>
> The full paper is at http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm
>
> Sally
>
>
>
>
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust
> *Sent:* 02 May 2012 08:44
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] What is Green Open Access and how is it practised?
> Somequestions
>
> 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]
> 2 does Green OA depend on publishers agreeing to authors self-archiving
> their manuscripts?
>     [My assumption is YES]
> 3 is there any "official organization" that *formally* negotiates Green OA
> with publishers?
>     [My assumption is NO]
> 4 what percentage of publishers currently forbid Green OA as defined in
> Q1?
>     [My assumption is about 40%]
> 5 How many institutions do Green OA mandates potentially apply to?
>     [I estimate between 1000 and 10000]
> 6 Is there one or more global organization *formally* coordinating these
> institutions?
>     [I suspect NO]
> 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.]
> 8. How many institutions currently offer Green OA?
>     [I think Peter Suber recently suggested about 1500 have repos].
> 9 what is the current full economic cost of a self-archived manuscript in
> a (a) UK University? (b) Elsewhere?
>     [see below]
> 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)]
> 11. Is there any SIMPLE way of finding all Green manuscripts across all
> repos?
>     [I assume NO.]
> 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.
> 13 How many institutions know and publish metrics of Green deposition
> including a percentage of the possible?.
>
> 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
> 15. Can Green OA deliver 100% of the scholarly literature [sic]?
>   [I assume NO].
>       If not what is a figure that proponents would feel represented a
> major positive outcome ("success")?
>
>
>
>
> [*] 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.
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120503/3a57c3a9/attachment.html