<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 20/01/2012 03:15, Stevan Harnad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:A9410512-B7D8-4C7F-A42E-AFEE3384570E@ecs.soton.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 2012-01-19, at 11:02 AM, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Can you give me any numbers for scientists within the U.S. who do not have
access to the professional literature they need through either their institutional
affiliations or services like DeepDyve?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I can give you the following pieces of indirect evidence:
(1) The (now-out-of-date) ARL stats on institutional serials holdings. The estimate
is that the articles in the serials that the institution cannot afford to subscribe to or
license are inaccessible to the users at that institution:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats">http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats</a>
(2) The data on the OA advantage in downloads and citations
(indicators of what is being lost if access is restricted to subscribers only):
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html">http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html</a>
More direct evidence can only come from polling researchers or monitoring their
web activity automatically, to see how many times they click on articles and are
stopped by a pay-wall (including a DeepDyve pay-wall).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is a group on Friendfeed that has been informally, and with an
enormous selection bias, registering the different kinds of requests
for PDFs from scientists to other scientists who do have access to
given journals through institutional subscriptions. Cf. conversation
thread here and links therein; it's pretty self-explanatory :
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ff.im/D8dEw">http://ff.im/D8dEw</a>. Not sorted by country of origin, though.
<br>
<br>
From: Danny Jones Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:46:43 -0600
<blockquote
cite="mid:A9410512-B7D8-4C7F-A42E-AFEE3384570E@ecs.soton.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am very
interested in seeing (specifically in my case) NIH-funded final
reports made publicly available.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Fine, and welcome.
But, as I said, no substitute for access to refereed journal articles,
for researchers.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Absolutely not a substitute! But there was CRISP and now
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm">http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm</a> for consulting a large
if not complete set of funded projects. Insufficiently advertised,
and what about the NSF for example?<br>
<br>
"The RePORT Expenditures and Results (<a
href="http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm" target="_blank"
title="RePORTER" style="text-decoration:underline; color:#0F538E">RePORTER</a>)
system is an electronic tool that allows users to search a
repository of both intramural and extramural NIH-funded research
projects from the past 25 years and access publications and patents
citing this support."<br>
<br>
Requiring annual progress reports to also be public starts to get a
little difficult to implement, and indeed tricky for the researcher
to be able to benefit from their own data, or else an incentive to
under-report until the next financial cycle is underway.<br>
<br>
As far as depositing own articles into a repository, when it must be
done, it will be. I have a lot of options, and only want to pick the
most efficient one to do it once and only once. But I don't find it
more constraining than, for example, the character or
pixels-per-square-inch or other constraints the publishers place on
me to typeset my own article before it makes it to print. A hassle,
yes, but at least the final result is public and recognized as my
work.<br>
<br>
Heather<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>