[GOAL] Re: Puzzled - please help

[Stevan Harnad]

These are good questions from Bo-Christer Björk and we are now doing
further breakdowns of the robot analyses to estimate the proportions of
publisher-provided delayed access vs author self-archiving.

Stevan Harnad

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bo-Christer Björk <
bo-christer.bjork at hanken.fi> wrote:

>  Dear Sally,
>
> This has obviously puzzled us as well as Yassine and Stevan.
>
> The discrepancies in the green figures are easier to deal with. Since
> Yassine's gold figures are so low and everything else which the robots have
> found is classified as "self-archieved" the hits classified as green rise
> over 20 %. However, in our studies we have further split down such copies
> into further categories. It turns out that part are not self-archived at
> all but articles in delayed OA journals (the robot searches are made with a
> considerable delay due to the availability of meta-data), paid hybrid
> articles and promotionally free articles in subscription journals (many
> journals seem to make one issue per annum free as advertisement). All of
> these are caught in the same robotized net and should be sorted out. In
> 2011 there were around 83'000 delayed OA articles, around 10'000 hybrid
> article and an unknown number of promotional OA articles in ISI journals
> which together make at least 7-8 %.
>
> The huge discrepancy in the pure gold number is more difficult to explain,
> and the fact that Yassine's study had a more limited number of disciplines
> with equally big samples cannot alone explain it. Their numbers show hardly
> any growth in the gold share in ISI between 2005 and 2010, when our as we
> believe very robust method shows a very substantial growth (from 6,6 % to 9
> % share in ISI between just 2008 and 2011). Also their numbers are even
> lower than the McVeigh study from 2003, a year when BMC and PLoS were just
> started.
>
> Best regards
>
> Bo-Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/6/12 6:41 PM, Sally Morris wrote:
>
> Can anyone shed light on the following apparent discrepancy:
>
> Laakso and Bjork (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124)  give a
> figure for articles published in 2011 and indexed in Scopus - 11% in full
> Gold journals, 0.7% in hybrid journals, and 5% in 'delayed OA' journals
> with a delay of no more than 12 months [Stevan may not like the term, but I
> think the rest of us understand it well enough, so let's not get into that!]
>
> Gargouri et al (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.3664.pdf), on
> the other hand, give a figure of just 1.2% articles published in 2010 via
> Gold OA
>
> Furthermore, Gargouri et al give the percentage of 2010 articles available
> via Green OA as 21.9% (2008 articles 20.6%).  Bjork et al (
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273) had
> a very different figure of 11.9% for articles published in 2008.
>
> I can't get my head round the spectacular difference between the two sets
> of figures - can someone please explain?  I can't believe that
> inclusion/exclusion in Scopus can possibly account for it. Am I missing
> something?
>
> Thanks
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20121107/ec5a6936/attachment-0001.html