<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Peter, <br>
<br>
I have been working on institutional publication collaboration and
have some data maybe useful to you.<br>
<br>
The proportion is discipline dependent, but university is always
the major contributor: <br>
<br>
Computer science (ACM publications from 1950-2010)<br>
University 62%<br>
Research Institutes 5%<br>
Company 19%<br>
Unknown 14% (Missing or unable to recognise)<br>
<br>
Pharmacology (ISI from 1973-2011)<br>
Company 13%<br>
Research Institute 28%<br>
University 60%<br>
<br>
Material Science (ISI from 1973-2011)<br>
Company 2.5%<br>
Research Institute 10%<br>
University 87.5%<br>
<br>
Law (ISI from 1973-2011)<br>
Company 0%<br>
Research Institute 15%<br>
University 85%<br>
<br>
Psycology (ISI from 1973-2011)<br>
Company 0%<br>
Research Institute 10%<br>
University 90%<br>
<br>
Please not that these proportions are authorship percentages, i.e.
90% of university means 90% of author is affiliated with an
university. <br>
<br>
Let me know if you need anything else.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Jiadi<br>
<br>
On 02/05/2012 17:57, Stevan Harnad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:D2E69249-6203-4B57-ACA4-0DC992A0C679@ecs.soton.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi Jiadi, could you post your findings on the following to goal,
please:
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">7 What proportion of publications
come from "Universities" or other<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">organizations that potentially
support self-archiving infrastructure?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I guess about 80%. Publications
from industry, research institutions,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">hospitals, field stations, etc.
should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">substandard.]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Don't know. Preumably depends on the discipline.<br>
<br>
Les Carr's and my student, Jiadi Yao, has some limited data
on the<br>
proportion of university, research institute and corporate
research in<br>
some fields. I will ask him to post. (I agree that refereed
research<br>
from all sources is relevant, and the standard depends on
the<br>
peer-review standards of the journal that accepts it.)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Thanks, S</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<div>Begin forwarded message:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;
color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>From: </b></span><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">Stevan
Harnad <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;
color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Date: </b></span><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">May
2, 2012 12:10:39 PM EDT<br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;
color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>To: </b></span><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">"Global
Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;
color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Subject: </b></span><span
style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;"><b>Re:
What is Green Open Access and how is it practised?
Some questions</b><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">If we are being pragmatic, it is
necessary to know the facts on which we<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">base our strategy.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">I will publicly admit that I do
not understand the goals of "Green Open<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Access".<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> I would like to ask a set of
(hopefully simple) factual questions about<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Green. Please humour me by only
answering the questions. I may have wrong<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">assumptions - that why I am
asking.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">1 does Green OA require the
archival of complete published fulltext?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [My assumption is YES]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, the author's refereed final draft or higher.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">2 does Green OA depend on
publishers agreeing to authors self-archiving<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">their manuscripts?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [My assumption is YES]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. It depends on authors self-archiving their
manuscripts.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">3 is there any "official
organization" that *formally* negotiates Green OA<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">with publishers?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [My assumption is NO]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. But the majority of journals (and almost all the top
ones) already<br>
endorse immediate Green OA.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">4 what percentage of publishers
currently forbid Green OA as defined in Q1?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [My assumption is about 40%]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
About 35% of journals, about 40% of publishers.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">5 How many institutions do Green
OA mandates potentially apply to?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I estimate between 1000 and
10000]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
All research institutions (universities and research
institutes)<br>
worldwide, which is presumably at least as many as the
higher<br>
figure...<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">6 Is there one or more global
organization *formally* coordinating these<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">institutions?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I suspect NO]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. They are an anarchic network, like the Web. (But the
repositories<br>
are at least OAI-interoperable.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">7 What proportion of publications
come from "Universities" or other<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">organizations that potentially
support self-archiving infrastructure?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I guess about 80%.
Publications from industry, research institutions,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">hospitals, field stations, etc.
should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">substandard.]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Don't know. Preumably depends on the discipline.<br>
<br>
Les Carr's and my student, Jiadi Yao, has some limited
data on the<br>
proportion of university, research institute and corporate
research in<br>
some fields. I will ask him to post. (I agree that
refereed research<br>
from all sources is relevant, and the standard depends on
the<br>
peer-review standards of the journal that accepts it.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">8. How many institutions currently
offer Green OA?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I think Peter Suber recently
suggested about 1500 have repos].<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
ROAR has the current figures for repositories. (But most
are<br>
unmandated, and hence only contain a small percentage of
the<br>
full-texts of the institution's total annual refereed
research<br>
output.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">9 what is the current full
economic cost of a self-archived manuscript in a<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">(a) UK University? (b) Elsewhere?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [see below]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Negligibly small, per paper. And would be even smaller if
the<br>
repositories were mandated, hence full, rather than
unmandated, and<br>
near empty.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">10. Is there any agreed mechanism
for (a) humans (b) machines to tell that<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">an object in a repo is a Green
manuscript?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I assume MAYBE for (a) and NO
for (b)]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A human can certainly tell, by inspection. No mechanism
for machines<br>
yet, as far as I know (though it's feasible). But as long
as the<br>
percentage OA is a sparse as it is, it's hardly urgent to
develop such<br>
a mechanism. What's urgent is to mandate deposit.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">11. Is there any SIMPLE way of
finding all Green manuscripts across all<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">repos? [I assume NO.]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not yet. Nor is it urgent, while OA content is so sparse.
But it's<br>
feasible. The much more urgent priority is mandating
deposit of the<br>
content.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">12. How is the compliance of
authors in depositing Green OA measured? By<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">whom? [I assume this has to be
done by an institution and this requires them<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">to (a) know how many publications
have been published by "their staff" and<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">(b) know how many are in the repo.
I assume it is the aggregation of these<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">figures that gives the "20%" green
figure.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Most institutions are not systematically measuring this
yet, but<br>
samples have been tested webwide (and not just for
repositories, but<br>
also authors' websites) and 20% seems to be a good
ballpark figure.<br>
<br>
Mandated repositories are more likely to measure annual
deposit rate,<br>
and effectively implemented mandates (like Southampton
ECS, QUT, Minho<br>
and Liege) capture over 70% of their annual refereed
research output.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">13 How many institutions know and
publish metrics of Green deposition<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">including a percentage of the
possible?.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
For the vast majority of institutions that lack mandates,
this<br>
percentage would not be very useful. Yassine Gargouri is
doing %OA<br>
analyses for the institutions with effective mandates, and
comparing<br>
them with weak and no mandates.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">14. The goal of Green OA is, as I
understand it, for all Universities [sic]<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">to put copies of all their
peer-reviewed publications into a professionally<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">supported Institutional
repository. YES/NO<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
All research institutions, which includes universities,
research<br>
institutes and corporate R&D centres.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">15. Can Green OA deliver 100% of
the scholarly literature [sic]?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> [I assume NO].<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, if all institutions and funders mandate Green OA.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> If not what is a figure that
proponents would feel represented a major<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">positive outcome ("success")?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If all institutions and funders adopt (effective) Green OA
mandates,<br>
close to 100% of refereed research would be OA. That's the
only<br>
outcome worth aiming for.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[*] I think PeterS suggested about
1.5-5 FTEs per IR. Assume 2, and cost<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">each at 100K USD Full economic
costs. I trawled UK Universities and found<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">that they had between 500 and
10000 items. Not all of these are final<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">manuscripts - some are theses
(although these are so heterogeneously<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">archived it's almost impossible to
know) and some are other artifacts.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Assume 1000 deposits per year (and
I think that is optimistic) and you get<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">over 100USD per manuscript, not
including researcher time. I don't think<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">that this reduces dramatically by
volume as many manuscripts require<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">assistance from the repo staff.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Repositories are created and used for other purposes than
OA. But even<br>
if they were just for OA, the cost per paper for an
unmandated<br>
repository is uninformative, except to show that a
repository is not<br>
worth much unless deposit is mandated.<br>
<br>
For a repository that is capturing 100% of its annual
research output,<br>
the cost per paper deposited is negligibly small.<br>
<br>
Stevan Harnad<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>