<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I have some statistics pertinent to Question 4. They
date from 2008, but I would guess that, if anything, publishers' policies would
have become more relaxed with regard to self-archiving since
then</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>At that time, over 80% of publishers (as calculated by the
number of articles they publish, rather than strictly number of publishers)
permitted self-archiving of the submitted and/or accepted versionto a personal
or departmental website, over 60% to an institutional repository, and over 40%
to a subject repository. Self-archiving of the final, published version
was, however, very much more restricted at between 5% </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>and
10%</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012></SPAN><SPAN
class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Authors'
perception of what they were allowed to do by their publishing agreements,
however, substantially underestimated the extent to which self-archiving was in
fact permitted for the 'preprint' version, but overestimated the extent to which
it was permitted for the final published version.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>The full paper is at <A
href="http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm">http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555240522-02052012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham,
Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Email:
sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Peter
Murray-Rust<BR><B>Sent:</B> 02 May 2012 08:44<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] What is Green Open Access
and how is it practised? Somequestions<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>If we are being pragmatic, it is necessary to know the facts on which
we base our strategy.<BR><BR>I will publicly admit that I do not understand the
goals of "Green Open Access". <BR><BR> I would like to ask a set of
(hopefully simple) factual questions about Green. Please humour me by only
answering the questions. I may have wrong assumptions - that why I am
asking.<BR><BR>1 does Green OA require the archival of complete published
fulltext? <BR> [My assumption is YES] <BR>2 does Green OA
depend on publishers agreeing to authors self-archiving their manuscripts?
<BR> [My assumption is YES]<BR>3 is there any "official
organization" that *formally* negotiates Green OA with publishers?
<BR> [My assumption is NO]<BR>4 what percentage of publishers
currently forbid Green OA as defined in Q1? <BR> [My
assumption is about 40%]<BR>5 How many institutions do Green OA mandates
potentially apply to? <BR> [I estimate between 1000 and
10000]<BR>6 Is there one or more global organization *formally* coordinating
these institutions? <BR> [I suspect NO]<BR>7 What proportion
of publications come from "Universities" or other organizations that potentially
support self-archiving infrastructure? <BR> [I guess about
80%. Publications from industry, research institutions, hospitals, field
stations, etc. should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or substandard.]<BR>8. How
many institutions currently offer Green OA? <BR> [I think
Peter Suber recently suggested about 1500 have repos].<BR>9 what is the current
full economic cost of a self-archived manuscript in a (a) UK University? (b)
Elsewhere? <BR> [see below]<BR>10. Is there any agreed
mechanism for (a) humans (b) machines to tell that an object in a repo is a
Green manuscript? <BR> [I assume MAYBE for (a) and NO for
(b)]<BR>11. Is there any SIMPLE way of finding all Green manuscripts across all
repos? <BR> [I assume NO.] <BR>12. How is the compliance of
authors in depositing Green OA measured? By whom? [I assume this has to be done
by an institution and this requires them to (a) know how many publications have
been published by "their staff" and (b) know how many are in the repo. I assume
it is the aggregation of these figures that gives the "20%" green figure.<BR>13
How many institutions know and publish metrics of Green deposition including a
percentage of the possible?.<BR><BR>14. The goal of Green OA is, as I understand
it, for all Universities [sic] to put copies of all their peer-reviewed
publications into a professionally supported Institutional repository.
YES/NO<BR>15. Can Green OA deliver 100% of the scholarly literature [sic]?
<BR> [I assume NO]. <BR> If not what is a
figure that proponents would feel represented a major positive outcome
("success")?<BR><BR><BR><BR clear=all><BR>[*] I think PeterS suggested about
1.5-5 FTEs per IR. Assume 2, and cost each at 100K USD Full economic costs. I
trawled UK Universities and found that they had between 500 and 10000 items. Not
all of these are final manuscripts - some are theses (although these are so
heterogeneously archived it's almost impossible to know) and some are other
artifacts. Assume 1000 deposits per year (and I think that is optimistic) and
you get over 100USD per manuscript, not including researcher time. I don't think
that this reduces dramatically by volume as many manuscripts require assistance
from the repo staff.<BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Peter Murray-Rust<BR>Reader in Molecular
Informatics<BR>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<BR>University of
Cambridge<BR>CB2 1EW, UK<BR>+44-1223-763069<BR></BODY></HTML>