On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, leo waaijers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:leowaa@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">leowaa@xs4all.nl</a>></span> wrote:<div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Arial">A good insight in OA versus non-OA publishing
and, within OA, about Green versus Gold may be gained from a <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124" target="_blank">recent
BMC-article</a> "Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of
longitudinal development and internal structure" bij Mikael Laakso
and Bo-Christer Björk. <br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That Laakso & <span style="font-family:Arial">Björk </span>article calculates the annual proportion of articles indexed by WoS and SCOPUS that are published in Gold OA journals (about 12% in 2011). (An additional 5% defined as "delayed Gold," embargoed for up to a year, seems to be credited to the wrong year: An article is only OA when it is OA.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>L & B provide no evidence about Green versus Gold (so I'm not sure what insight Leo has in mind). Unmandated Green OA (24%) is at least twice annual Gold OA annually, and mandated Green OA (70%+) is six times annual Gold OA.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The only Green vs Gold insight I can discern in this is that universities and funders should mandate Green OA, now, instead of waiting for Gold OA -- or double-paying for Gold pre-emptively, as the Finch Report proposes doing (on the basis of the Finch Hypothesis that Green OA mandates are ineffective -- which is precisely what our new data refute...).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial"><br>
</font>
<div>Op 28-10-2012 12:57, Stevan Harnad
schreef:<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On 2012-10-28, at 6:44 AM, David Wojick <<a href="mailto:dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US" target="_blank">dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Stevan, did you verify that the deposits were actual
articles? In many cases the records counted by ROAR are
metadata or other items. For example Cambridge is listed
as very large but it has almost no articles. Does ROAR log
actual articles separately? I have not seen that in their
data but may have missed it.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
David, you are quite right to ask this question, and the answer
is no:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>1. <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org" target="_blank">ROAR</a> does not yet
have a reliable way to determine whether a deposit is the
full-text of a refereed journal article or just the metadata
(or some other kind of content).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. However, we do have a robot that can sample and test
that with <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/262220/1/sigdet.gif" target="_blank">high
accuracy</a>, and one natural follow-up study is to use the
robot to estimate what proportion of repository content is
full-text journal articles.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. In a prior study we have already used the robot to
confirm about <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636" target="_blank">70%</a> full-text
deposit for the oldest and strongest mandates.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. Meanwhile, however, whatever that full-text percentage
is globally, it seems reasonable to suppose that it is roughly
the same across repositories: hence an increase in the average
number of deposits means an increase in full-text deposits,
whatever the average full-text percentage is.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>5. The mandates in question are full-text deposit deposit
mandates: <i>they are not fulfilled by depositing metadata
alone (or other kinds of content).</i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>6. Hence it seems reasonable to suppose that if the deposit
rate is higher, the stronger the mandate, the increase is in
full-text deposits, not just metadata (or other kinds of
content), regardless of the baseline proportion of full-text
across repositories.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>7. To suppose otherwise would be to suppose a rather
complicated and <i>ad hoc</i> form of bias: that the
institutions which tend to adopt stronger Green OA mandates
are also the institutions which tend to have higher deposit
rates already -- and/or deposit rates with full-text ratios
systematically different from the global average.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>8. We did test for bias in <a href="http://www.webometrics.info" target="_blank">university webomtrics
rankings</a> associated with mandate strength, but found
none.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(You are quite right about the enormous number of deposits
-- <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:sans-serif">216,692</span>,
mostly not articles -- in the <a href="http://roar.eprints.org/390/" target="_blank">Cambridge repository</a>. This
did not enter into our analysis because (a) Cambridge has no
mandate at all. Moreover, (b) Cambridge does not rank highly in
the <a href="http://roar.eprints.org/cgi/roar_search/advanced?location_country=&software=&type=institutional&order=-activity_medium/-date" target="_blank">medium
deposit rate</a> ranking that ROAR considers most closely
matched to annual university article output: This suggests that
Cambridge is uploading huge batches of some sort of data rarely,
rather than regularly depositing approximately the number of
articles that universities produce across the year.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stevan Harnad</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br>
On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS
(for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM, CHARLES OPPENHEIM <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:c.oppenheim@btinternet.com" target="_blank">c.oppenheim@btinternet.com</a>></span>
wrote:
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<div><span>This is a significant and important
set of findings, which should be forwarded
on to decision-makers, both in Universities
and in funding agencies.</span></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span>More
like this, please Stevan</span></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Professor
Charles Oppenheim</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More on the way. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But meanwhile, OA advocates, <i>please do
forward these findings on mandate strength to
decision-makers at your university and funding
agencies</i>. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's now more important than ever to make sure
that OA policy decisions are evidence-based,
especially to counter the extensive negative effects
of the publishing lobby, as most dramatically
exerted very recently on the <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342580/1/harnad-cilip.pdf" target="_blank">Finch
Report and the resulting RCUK policy</a>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stevan Harnad</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b>
Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
<a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Friday, 26 October 2012, 18:59<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
OA Week: Testing the Finch Hypothesis on
Green OA Mandate Effectiveness<br>
</font> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
In June 2012, the UK Finch Committee made
the following statement:</div>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin:0px 0px 5px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em;min-height:1em"><i style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">"The
[Green OA] policies of neither
research funders nor universities
themselves have yet had a major effect
in ensuring that researchers make
their publications accessible in
institutional repositories…"</i> <b style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">[<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-bottom-style:none;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(228,105,3);font-weight:normal" target="_blank">Finch Committee
Recommendation, June 2012</a>]</b><b style="background-color:transparent;font-size:1em;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline"> </b></div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<b style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"><br>
</b></div>
<div>
<b style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Testing
the Finch Hypothesis</b></div>
<div>
We have now tested the Finch Hypothesis.
Using data from ROARMAP institutional
Green OA mandates and data from ROAR on
institutional repositories, we found that
deposit number and rate is significantly
correlated with mandate strength
(classified as 1-12): The stronger the
mandate, the more the deposits. The
strongest mandates generate deposit rates
of 70%+ within 2 years of adoption,
compared to the un-mandated deposit rate
of 20%. The effect is already detectable
at the national level, where the UK, which
has the largest proportion of Green OA
mandates, has a national OA rate of 35%,
compared to the global baseline of 25%.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Conclusion</b><b style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"><br style="font-size:1em">
</b>The conclusion is that, contrary to
the Finch Hypothesis, Green Open Access
Mandates <i style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">do</i> have
a major effect, and the stronger the
mandate, the stronger the effect (the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-bottom-style:none;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(228,105,3)" target="_blank">Liege ID/OA mandate</a>,
linked to research performance evaluation,
being the strongest mandate model). <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-bottom-style:none;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(228,105,3)" target="_blank">RCUK</a> (as well as all
universities, research institutions and
research funders worldwide) would be well
advised to adopt the strongest Green OA
mandates and to integrate institutional
and funder mandates.</div>
<div>
The findings are in the link below. <i>Discussion
invited!</i></div>
<div>
<span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Gargouri,
Yassine</span>, <span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Lariviere,
Vincent</span>, <span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Gingras,
Yves</span>, <span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Brody,
Tim</span>, <span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Carr,
Les</span> and <span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">Harnad,
Stevan</span></span><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"> </span><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">(2012)</span><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/344687/" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-bottom-style:none;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(228,105,3)" target="_blank">Testing the Finch
Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate
Effectiveness</a></span><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em">.</span><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"> </span><span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"><i>Open
Access Week 2012</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:transparent;font-size:1em"><i> </i></span></div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>