[GOAL] Re: Request Button is Now Native to DSpace

[Stevan Harnad]

>
> *To count dark deposits for the mandate quote is nothing than cheating.*


Cheating? The U Liège ORBi Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access mandate
requires (1) depositing immediately upon publication and (2) making the
deposit OA after the allowable embargo (usually one year) (if there is a
publisher OA embargo at all).

 Liège annual deposit rates are over 80%
<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/> (for ISI-indxed output), about half of
it immediate-OA and about half Button-mediated access till the end of the
embargo. Most deposits are OA within a year.

Do you suggest not counting compliance with (1), even though it is
mandatory?

And the relevant point of comparison is either *Delayed-Deposit mandates *or
no mandate at all -- not some ideal that there is no practical way of
reaching at this time.

Even if not every author fulfills a Button request, Immediate-Deposit
mandates provide exactly the same amount of Delayed OA as Delayed-Deposit
mandates, plus all the Button-mediated access that authors provide.

It might be more constructive to try counting the Button-mediated access
that authors actually *do* provide, not just what they don't. It's all *extra
access*, over and above that provided by Delayed OA mandates -- and, a
fortiori, even further over and above that provided by no mandate at all.

Most IRs (including all German) have no mandates...


Yes, and that's precisely why the Immediate-Deposit mandate and the Button
were designed: So that all institutions could at least mandate
immediate-deposit with the Button, no matter how long an OA embargo they
allowed.

[re U Liège/ORBi] *Peer Reviewed with full text (incl. dark deposits):
> 3147. I have manually counted the first 5 pages (32 dark deposits of 100)
> and the last 5 (excluding the last page, 42 of 100). If ca. 37 % of the
> deposits of peer reviewed full text documents in 2009 were dark deposits,
> this would be 1164 eprints*.


I will let Liège/ORBi representatives reply about the specifics of their
mandates. The data we have are that over 80% of Liège's annual ISI-indexed
output is deposited within 3 months of publication (some of it much
earlier), about half of it as immediate OA and half as Button-Mediated
Almost-OA. That's already incomparably better than Germany's non-mandates.

My understanding was that embargoed Liège/ORBi deposits are automatically
made OA after the embargo elapses. (That is how it is done at Southampton,
for example.) If not, it is an easy implementation detail to fix.

And concerning http://hdl.handle.net/2268/165664 which you asked about, the
Recto has relied:


“C’est un *rapport* de Dassargues, peut-être financé par une source privée
(à vérifier). Dans ce cas, si le financeur de la recherche souhaite garder
le rapport confidentiel, c'est son droit, mais l'auteur désire quand même
le mentionner puisqu'il a fait le travail et que le résultat de celui-ci
est évalué via ORBi... Il doit y avoir d'autres cas du même genre.”


*Translation:* “This is a report [not a publication] by Dassargues, perhaps
funded by a private source (remains to be verified). In that case, if the
research funder wishes to keep the report confidential, that is his right,
but the author nevertheless wishes to mention it because he did the work
and the university evaluates research performance only via ORBi. There are
no doubt other cases like that.”


And again: It might be more constructive to try counting the
Button-mediated access that authors actually *do* provide, not just what
they don't. It's all extra access, over and above that provided by Delayed
OA mandates -- and, a fortiori, even further over and above no mandate at
all.


And I must repeat, it's all well and good to be dissatisfied with
Immediate-Deposit Mandates and the Button, but it might be more informative
to respond to my challenge to describe a practical alternative and evidence
that it provides at least as much access...


*Stevan Harnad*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20140530/792eb6f9/attachment.html