<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca" target="_blank">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Most interesting dialogue.<br>
<br>
I will focus on two points:<br>
<br>
1. <b>Using the Web of Science collection as a reference</b>: 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. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The purpose of using WoS (or SCOPUS, or any other standardized index) as a<i> baseline</i> for assessing OA repository success is to be able to estimate (and compare) <i>what percentage of an institution's total annual refereed journal article output has been self-archived. </i></div><div><br></div><div>Raw total or annual deposit counts tell us neither (1) whether the deposits are refereed journal articles nor (2) when the articles were published, nor (most important of all) (3) what proportion of total annual refereed journal article output is deposited.</div><div><br></div><div>Institutions do not know even know their total annual refereed journal article output. (One of the (many) reasons for mandating self-archiving is in order to get that information.)</div><div><br></div><div>The WoS (or SCOPUS, or other) standardized database provides the denominator against which the deposits of those articles provide the numerator. </div><div><br></div><div>Once that ratio is known (for WoS articles, for example), it provides an estimate of the proportion of total institutional article output deposited. </div><div><br></div><div>Anyone can then "correct" the ratio for their institution and discipline, if they wish, by simply taking a (large enough) sample of total institutional journal article output for a recent year and seeing what percentage of it is in WoS! (This would obviously have to be done discipline by discipline; and indeed the institutional totals should also be broken down and analyzed by discipline.)</div><div><br></div><div>So if D/W, the WoS-deposit/total-WoS ratio = R, and w/s, the WoS-indexed-portion/total-output-sample = c, then c can be used to upgrade W to the estimate of total institutional article output, and the WoS deposit ratio R can be compared to the deposit ratio for the non-WoS sample (<i>which must not, of course, be derived from the repository, but some other way!</i>) to get a non-WoS ratio of Rc. </div><div><br></div><div>My own prediction is that R and Rc will be quite similar, but if not, c can also be used to correct R to better reflect both WoS and non-WoS output and their relative sizes.</div><div><br></div><div>But R is still by far the easiest and fastest way to get an estimate of institutional deposit percentages.</div><div><br></div><div>(As far as I can see, none of this has much to do with impact factor folly. For non-English-language institutions, however, the non-WoS correction may be more substantial.)</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Authors are welcome to deposit as much as they like: articles, chapters, books, data, software.</div><div><br></div><div>But OA's primary target (and also its primary obstacle) is journal articles. Ditto for OA mandates.</div><div><br></div><div>All disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, in all languages, write journal articles. This discussion is about the means of measuring the success of an OA self-archiving mandate. It applies to all journal articles (and refereed conference articles) in all disciplines.</div><div><br></div><div>There are problems with mandating book deposit, or even book chapter deposit, so that is being left for later.</div><div><br></div><div>Nothing is being said about performance review except that the way to submit journal articles should be stipulated to be repository deposit.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>2. <b>The issue of rules and regulations.</b> 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): "<i>henceforth the way to submit refereed</i> <i><s>journal article</s></i><i> publications for annual performance review is to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR "</i>. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Liège does not mandate the deposit of books.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not sure what is the point of the above observations. I agree it has been difficult to get authors to deposit. That's why the OA movement has turned to mandates, and now to ways of optimizing mandates so as to facilitate and maximize success (i.e. deposit rates). And here we are just talking about how to measure and compare those deposit rates between institutions, and between mandates.</div><div><br></div><div>Nothing about impact factors, performance evaluation criteria, metrics, discipline criteria or language differences. Just ways to induce journal article authors to deposit them in their institutional repositories. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I invite Jean-Claude to time me depositing an article in my institutional repository (and I am not a fast typist)! It takes about two minutes.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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.<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td></td></tr></tbody></table></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The target is journal articles in all disciplines. Not clear why SSH journal article authors would be any more or less compliant with self-archiving mandates than any other discipline. It has nothing to do with books, yet.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, once journal articles are being self-archived universally, many other things will follow.</div><div><br></div><div>I suggest that it may be more constructive to practice deposit keystrokes to provide OA than to cite a-priori rationales for the status quo, Jean-Claude. I bet you'll be up to speed after depositing just a few articles!</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :<br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<b>From: </b>Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<b>Subject: </b>Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<b>Date: </b>September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <<a href="mailto:proyster2@UNL.EDU" target="_blank">proyster2@UNL.EDU</a>> wrote:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the waters of scholarly communications,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier this month, I shall venture the following …<br>
<br>
Answers for Dr. Harnad<br>
<br>
(1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal articles (only) per year is
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished your graduate student (at least he
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could compare it to Web of Science
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I cautioned him that I felt Web of
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample, but I sent the data anyway.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If the news is good, I hope you will
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your guide. As for benchmarking, I don’t believe
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free scholarship is a positive one. I hope when
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for participation.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I just called him to ask about
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the results of the analysis in 2-3 weeks!
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data. Apparently Sue was not aware that UNL
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!).
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
(2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? <br>
I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that is my university’s administration;
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I have not campaigned for adoption of
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
such a mandate. My reasons have been purely personal and idiosyncratic, and I do not hold them
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or attitude of this university. Bluntly,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are enough regulations and requirements
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further problems of enforcement or compliance,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too many rules: we have to park in
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke products; we have to wear red on game
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc. etc. etc. I simply do not believe in
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own good. The Faculty Senate
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not desired more than that. But I am
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one medium-sized university town—not
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly communications crisis. I see discussions lately
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—who is intended to be bitten?
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few extra keystrokes when a refereed
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and the potential benefits are huge. Also,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a self-archiving mandate — if it’s the right
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that<i> henceforth the way to submit refereed</i>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<i>journal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit them in UNL’s IR</i> (rather than
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will comply as naturally as they did
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in hard copy. It’s just a technological upgrade.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
(3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?<br>
I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to Sue’s catalog of various proposed
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE, and others”—as
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.” I feel we are strong believers and
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and disdainful non-advocates for author-pays models.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests between the global theoretics of the
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
open access “movements” on the one hand and the “boots-on-the-ground” practicalities of managing
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other. Crusades for and controversies about
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
“open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually do, and now seem more of a
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
distraction than a help or guide.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library can’t mandate self-archiving, can’t fund
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe, if you look at the evidence that
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could encourage the administration… And
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can help with mediated self-archiving,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly necessary, for a few keystrokes — certainly
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking down the PDF. checking the rights. etc.).
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green” open access; and we have appreciated
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
“holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I sympathize with his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of this response will be interpreted as attempting
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if these answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
but that is all I can manage at this time.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Much appreciated, Paul!
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other IRs, mandated and unmandated.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Best wishes,
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
Stevan
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
Paul Royster<br>
Coordinator of Scholarly Communications<br>
University of Nebraska–Lincoln<br>
<a href="mailto:proyster@unl.edu" target="_blank">proyster@unl.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu" target="_blank">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu</a> <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>