[GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Most interesting dialogue.

I will focus on two points:

1. Using the Web of Science collection as a reference: this generates
all kinds of problems, particularly for disciplines that are not
dominated and skewed by the impact factor folly. This is true, for
example, of most of the social sciences and the humanities, especially
when these publications are not in English. 

Stevan has also and long argued about limiting oneself to journal
articles. I have my own difficulties with this limitation because book
chapters and monographs are so important in the disciplines that I tend
to work in. Also, I regularly write in French as well as English, while
reading articles in a variety of languages. Most of the articles that
are not in English are not in the Web of Science. A better way to
proceed would be to check if the journals not in the WoS, and
corresponding to deposited articles, are peer-reviewed. The same could
be done with book chapters. Incidentally, if I limited myself to WoS
publications for annual performance review, I would look rather bad. I
suspect I am not the only one in such a situation, while leading a
fairly honourable career in academe.

2. The issue of rules and regulations. It is absolutely true that a
procedure such as the one adopted at the Université de Liège and which
Stevan aptly summarizes as (with a couple of minor modifications):
"henceforth the way to submit refereed journal article publications for
annual performance review is to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR ".
However, obtaining this change of behaviour from an administration is no
small task. At the local, institutional, level, it corresponds to a
politically charged effort that requires having a number of committed OA
advocates working hard to push the idea. Stevan should know this from
his own experience in Montreal; he should also know that, presently, the
Open Access issue is not on the radar of most researchers. In scientific
disciplines, they tend to be mesmerized by impact factors without making
the link between this obsession and the OA advantage, partly because
enough controversies have surrounded this issue to maintain a general
feeling of uncertainty and doubt. In the social sciences and humanities
where the citation rates are far less "meaningful" - I put quotation
marks here to underscore the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of
citation numbers: visibility, prestige, quality? - the benefits of
self-archiving one's articles in open access are less obvious to
researchers, especially if they do not adopt a global perspective on the
importance of the "grand conversation" needed to produce knowledge in an
optimal manner, but rather intend to manage and protect their career.

Saying all this is not saying that we should not remain committed to OA,
far from it; is is simply saying that the chances of success in reaching
OA will not be significantly improved by simply referring to "huge"
benefits at the cost of only a few extra keystrokes. This is rhetoric.
The last time I deposited an article of mine, given the procedure used
in the depository I was using, it took me close to half an hour to enter
all the details required by that depository - a depository organized by
librarians, mainly for information science specialists. All these
details were legitimate and potentially useful.  However, while I was
absolutely sure I was doing the right thing, I could well understand why
a colleague less sanguine about OA than I am might push this task to the
back burner. In fact, I did so myself for several months. Shame on me,
probably, but this is the reality of the quotidian.

In conclusion, i suspect that if Stevan focuses on such a
narrowly-defined target - journal articles in the STM disciplines - this
is because he gambles on the fact that making these disciplines fully OA
would force the other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences
to follow suit sooner or later. Perhaps, it is so, but perhaps it is
not. Meanwhile, arguing in this fashion tends to alienate practitioners
of the humanities and the social sciences, so that the alleged
advantages of narrowly focusing on a well-defined target are perhaps
more than negatively compensated by the neglect of SSH disciplines. yet,
the latter constitute about half, if not more, of the researchers in the
world.

-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> > From: Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > 
> > Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster
> > Date: September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4
> > 
> > To: JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <proyster2 at UNL.EDU> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the
> > > waters of scholarly communications,
> > > but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier
> > > this month, I shall venture the following …
> > > 
> > > Answers for Dr. Harnad
> > > 
> > > (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed
> > > journal articles (only) per year is
> > > deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished
> > > your graduate student (at least he
> > > said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could
> > > compare it to Web of Science
> > > publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I
> > > cautioned him that I felt Web of
> > > Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample,
> > > but I sent the data anyway.
> > > So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If
> > > the news is good, I hope you will
> > > share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your
> > > guide. As for benchmarking, I don’t believe
> > > it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free
> > > scholarship is a positive one. I hope when
> > > they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for
> > > participation.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I
> > just called him to ask about
> > the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the
> > results of the analysis in 2-3 weeks!
> > 
> > 
> > So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data.
> > Apparently Sue was not aware that UNL
> > had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!).
> > 
> > 
> > > (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? 
> > > I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that
> > > is my university’s administration;
> > > so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I
> > > have not campaigned for adoption of
> > > such a mandate.  My reasons have been purely personal and
> > > idiosyncratic, and I do not hold them
> > > up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or
> > > attitude of this university. Bluntly,
> > > I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are
> > > enough regulations and requirements
> > > in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further
> > > problems of enforcement or compliance,
> > > and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too
> > > many rules: we have to park in
> > > designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke
> > > products; we have to wear red on game
> > > days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc.
> > > etc. etc. I simply do not believe in
> > > creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own
> > > good. The Faculty Senate
> > > voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not
> > > desired more than that. But I am
> > > concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one
> > > medium-sized university town—not
> > > with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly
> > > communications crisis. I see discussions lately
> > > about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—
> > > who is intended to be bitten?
> > > Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few
> > extra keystrokes when a refereed
> > final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and
> > the potential benefits are huge. Also,
> > there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a
> > self-archiving mandate — if it’s the right
> > self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that
> > henceforth the way to submit refereed
> > journal article publications for annual performance review is to
> > deposit them in UNL’s IR (rather than
> > however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will
> > comply as naturally as they did
> > when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in
> > hard copy. It’s just a technological upgrade.
> > 
> > 
> > > (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with
> > > author-self-archives?
> > > I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to
> > > Sue’s catalog of various proposed
> > > solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts,
> > > CHORUS, SHARE, and others”—as
> > > all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying
> > > degrees.” I feel we are strong believers and
> > > even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and
> > > disdainful non-advocates for author-pays models.
> > > But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests
> > > between the global theoretics of the
> > > open access “movements” on the one hand and the
> > > “boots-on-the-ground” practicalities of managing
> > > a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other.
> > > Crusades for and controversies about
> > > “open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually
> > > do, and now seem more of a
> > > distraction than a help or guide.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library
> > can’t mandate self-archiving,  can’t fund
> > author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe,
> > if you look at the evidence that
> > mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could
> > encourage the administration… And
> > of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can
> > help with mediated self-archiving,
> > at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly
> > necessary, for a few keystrokes — certainly
> > a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking
> > down the PDF. checking the rights. etc.).
> > 
> > 
> > > We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green”
> > > open access; and we have appreciated
> > > Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against
> > > innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and
> > > “holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I
> > > sympathize with his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness,
> > > and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of
> > > this response will be interpreted as attempting
> > > to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if
> > > these answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete,
> > > but that is all I can manage at this time.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Much appreciated, Paul! 
> > 
> > 
> > Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other
> > IRs, mandated and unmandated.
> > 
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > 
> > Stevan
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Paul Royster
> > > Coordinator of Scholarly Communications
> > > University of Nebraska–Lincoln
> > > proyster at unl.edu
> > > http://digitalcommons.unl.edu 
> > > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140917/1c11ee3e/attachment-0001.html