<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.6">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Heather, you are "spot on"! So is Bernard. And it is precisely the way big publishers manage to maintain a "double-Nelson" (for those of you who know anything about wrestling, this hold is forbidden) on academe. Without it, the inelastic market would fade away, and so would outrageous profit rates.<BR>
<BR>
And you are also right in asking that tenured profs do their part: it is "old farts" like me that must be in the front lines. Young, vulnerable, scholars must first think about their research and their careers.<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
--
<PRE>
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
Le samedi 20 septembre 2014 à 20:40 +0000, Heather Morrison a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Bernard Rentier raises an important point about external evaluations here. At the University of Ottawa, we have a really good collective agreement on the topics of tenure and promotion, and any reliance on things like the impact factor of the journals you publish in tenure and promotion decisions is in contravention of the collective agreement. However, as long as external evaluators of both tenure and promotion files and research grant proposals continue to focus on things like impact factor, a faculty member ignores these things at their peril.
A potential refusal of tenure - which generally means a loss of employment in a very tough job market - after many years to complete a doctorate and a number more to develop a tenure-worthy dossier is a very harsh punishment. It is my perspective that the OA movement needs to keep this in mind. We need tenured faculty to push forward on open access, and for emerging scholars this means making sure that their support for OA does not hinder their prospects for obtaining tenure.
best,
Heather Morrison
On 2014-09-20, at 1:10 PM, Bernard Rentier - IMAP wrote:
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Dear Richard,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Here are the answers:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> 1. ORBi, the Liège University Repository, will soon (I believe) reach 90% compliance. It is our target for 2014 and I hope we make it.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> This figure comes from the calculation of the percentage of ULg papers that can be found in Web of Science and/or in Scopus that are deposited in ORBi as well (see method in <A HREF="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/</A>)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> It concerns one year at a time and it is not cumulative. Last May, the compliance level for the publications of 2013 was already 73% and our figure for 2012 is in the 80% range.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> 2. Only a small proportion of ULg papers are in CC-BY.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> This is simply because, in order to publish in the journal of their choice (I haven’t tried to do anything against that!), our authors, in the great centuries-old tradition, give away their rights to the publisher. We have no control on that.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Later on, there is no way for them to CC-BY the same text (in fact, we are preparing ORBi 2.0, that will offer a CC-BY choice).</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> For now, we are aiming at free access and we are not yet fighting hard for re-use rights. We shall move progressively in this direction of course, while the publishing mores evolve…</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> In other words, I agree that we have free access, not a full fledge open access yet. It is not a failure, it is our objective to gain confidence first.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Unfortunately, even if we have established in-house rules for evaluation, external evaluations are still based on traditional indicators such as the highly and rightfully criticized but widely used Impact Factor and the like. In these conditions, today we cannot sacrifice our researchers — singularly the young ones — in the overall competition for jobs and funds, on the altar of « pure » Open Access.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Best wishes</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Bernard Rentier</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Rector, University of Liège, Belgium</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Le 19 sept. 2014 à 21:52, Richard Poynder <<A HREF="mailto:ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk">ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk</A>> a écrit :</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Dear Bernard,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I have two questions if I may:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 1. You say that Liège is getting close to 90% compliance. Can you explain how you know that, and how you calculate compliance levels? I ask this because the consistent theme coming through from UK universities with regard to compliance to the RCUK OA mandate is that they simply do not know how many research outputs their faculty produce each year. If that is right, what systems does Liège have in place to enable it to produce a comprehensive list of research outputs that UK universities apparently do not have?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 2. Does Liège track the licences attached to the deposits in its repository? If so, can you provide some stats, especially the number of items that are available CC-BY (which we are now told is required before a deposit can be characterised as being open access?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Thank you.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Richard Poynder</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> From: <A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [<A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>] On Behalf Of <A HREF="mailto:brentier@ulg.ac.be">brentier@ulg.ac.be</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Sent: 19 September 2014 18:46</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> "Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions." (JC. Guédon)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Oh no, Jean-Claude, Liège mandates everything.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> It is a real mandate and it took me a while to get almost every ULg researcher to realise that it is to his/her benefit. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Linking the deposits to personal in-house assessment was the trick to get the mandate enforced in the first place. As well as a few positive incentives and a lot of time consuming persuasion (but it was well worth it).</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Last Wednesday, the Liège University Board has put an ultimate touch of wisdom on its mandate by adding "immediately upon acceptance, even in restricted access" in the official procedure. Actually, a nice but to some extent useless addition because, with time (the mandate was imposed in 2007), ULg authors have become so convinced of the increase in readership and citations that two thirds of them make their deposits between the date of acceptance and the date of publication. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> All this explains why we are getting close to 90% compliance, an outstanding result, I believe. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Le 18 sept. 2014 à 23:40, Jean-Claude Guédon <<A HREF="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</A>> a écrit :</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive tsunami mode...</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 1. Stevan admits that his evaluation of compliance is an approximation, easy to get, but not easy to correct. This approximation varies greatly from one institution to another, one circumstance to another. For example, he admits that language plays a role; he should further admit that the greater or smaller proportion of SSH researchers in the research communities of various institutions will also play a role. in short, comparing two institutions by simply using WoS approximations appears rash and unacceptable to me, rather than simply quick and dirty (which I would accept as a first approximation).</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> The impact factor folly was mentioned because, by basing his approximation on the WoS, Stevan reinforces the centrality of a partial and questionable tool that is, at best, a research tool, not a management tool, and which stands behind all the research assessment procedures presently used in universities, laboratories, etc.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 2. Stevan and I have long differed about OA's central target. He limits himself to journal articles, as a first step; I do not. I do not because, in the humanities and social sciences, limiting oneself to journal articles would be limiting oneself to the less essential part of the archive we work with, unlike natural scientists. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Imagine a universe where a research metric would have been initially designed around SSH disciplines and then extended as is to STM. In such a parallel universe, books would be the currency of choice, and articles would look like secondary, minor, productions, best left for later assessments. Then, one prominent OA advocate named Stenan Harvard might argue that the only way to proceed forward is to focus only on books, that this is OA's sole objective, and that articles and the rest will be treated later... Imagine the reaction of science researchers... </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 3. Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions. If books and book chapters are more difficult to treat than articles, then place them in a dark archive with a button. This was the clever solution invented by Stevan and I agree with it.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 4. To obtain mandates, you need either faculty to vote a mandate on itself (but few universities have done so), or you need administrators to impose a mandate, but that is often viewed negatively by many of our colleagues. Meanwhile, they are strongly incited to publish in "prestigious journals" where prestige is "measured" by impact factors. From an average researcher's perspective, one article in Nature, fully locked behind pay-walls, is what is really valuable. Adding open access may be the cherry on the sundae, but it is not the sundae. The result? OA, as of now, is not perceived to be directly significant for successfully managing a career. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> On the other hand, the OA citation advantage has been fully recognized and accepted by publishers. That is in part why they are finally embracing OA: with high processing charges and the increased citation potential of OA, they can increase revenues even more and satisfy their stakeholders. This is especially true if funders, universities, libraries, etc., are willing to pay for the APC's. This is the trap the UK fell into.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 5. SSH authors are less interested in depositing articles than STM researchers because, for SSH researchers, articles have far less importance than books (see above), and, arguably, book chapters.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 6. I am not citing rationales for the status quo, and Stevan knows this well. This must be the first time that I have ever been associated with the status quo... Could it be that criticizing Stevan on one point could be seen by him as fighting for the status? But that would be true only if Stevan were right beyond the slightest doubt. Hmmmmmmmmmm!</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I personally think he is right on some points and not so right on others. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Also, I am simply trying to think about reasons why OA has been so hard to achieve so far, and, in doing so, I have come to two conclusions: too narrow an objective and too rigid an approach can both be counter-productive.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> This said, trying to have a method to compare deposit rates in various institutional and mandate circumstances would be very useful. I support Stevan's general objective in this regard; I simply object to the validity of the method he suggests. Alas, I have little to suggest beyond my critique. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I also suggest that a better understanding of the sociology of research (not the sociology of knowledge) is crucial to move forward.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Finally, I expect that if I saw Stevan self-archive his abundant scientific production, I would be awed by the lightning speed of his keystrokes. But are they everybody's keystrokes?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Jean-Claude Guédon</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> --</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Jean-Claude Guédon</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Professeur titulaire</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Littérature comparée</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Université de Montréal</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 12:28 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <<A HREF="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</A>> wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Most interesting dialogue.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I will focus on two points:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 1. Using the Web of Science collection as a reference: 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> The purpose of using WoS (or SCOPUS, or any other standardized index) as a baseline for assessing OA repository success is to be able to estimate (and compare) what percentage of an institution's total annual refereed journal article output has been self-archived. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> The WoS (or SCOPUS, or other) standardized database provides the denominator against which the deposits of those articles provide the numerator. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Once that ratio is known (for WoS articles, for example), it provides an estimate of the proportion of total institutional article output deposited. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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 (which must not, of course, be derived from the repository, but some other way!) to get a non-WoS ratio of Rc. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> But R is still by far the easiest and fastest way to get an estimate of institutional deposit percentages.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> (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.)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Authors are welcome to deposit as much as they like: articles, chapters, books, data, software.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> But OA's primary target (and also its primary obstacle) is journal articles. Ditto for OA mandates.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> There are problems with mandating book deposit, or even book chapter deposit, so that is being left for later.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Nothing is being said about performance review except that the way to submit journal articles should be stipulated to be repository deposit.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 2. The issue of rules and regulations. 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): "henceforth the way to submit refereedjournal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR ".</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Liège does not mandate the deposit of books.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Yes, once journal articles are being self-archived universally, many other things will follow.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> 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!</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Stevan Harnad </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Begin forwarded message:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> From: Stevan Harnad <<A HREF="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</A>></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Date: September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> To: <A HREF="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <<A HREF="mailto:proyster2@UNL.EDU">proyster2@UNL.EDU</A>> wrote: </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the waters of scholarly communications, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier this month, I shall venture the following …</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Answers for Dr. Harnad</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal articles (only) per year is </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished your graduate student (at least he </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could compare it to Web of Science </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I cautioned him that I felt Web of </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample, but I sent the data anyway. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If the news is good, I hope you will </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your guide. As for benchmarking, I don’t believe </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free scholarship is a positive one. I hope when </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for participation.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I just called him to ask about </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the results of the analysis in 2-3 weeks! </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data. Apparently Sue was not aware that UNL </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!). </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that is my university’s administration; </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I have not campaigned for adoption of </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> such a mandate. My reasons have been purely personal and idiosyncratic, and I do not hold them </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or attitude of this university. Bluntly, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are enough regulations and requirements </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further problems of enforcement or compliance, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too many rules: we have to park in </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke products; we have to wear red on game </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc. etc. etc. I simply do not believe in </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own good. The Faculty Senate </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not desired more than that. But I am </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one medium-sized university town—not </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly communications crisis. I see discussions lately </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—who is intended to be bitten? </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few extra keystrokes when a refereed </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and the potential benefits are huge. Also, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a self-archiving mandate — if it’s the right </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that henceforth the way to submit refereed </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> journal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit them in UNL’s IR (rather than </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will comply as naturally as they did </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in hard copy. It’s just a technological upgrade. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to Sue’s catalog of various proposed </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE, and others”—as </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.” I feel we are strong believers and </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and disdainful non-advocates for author-pays models. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests between the global theoretics of the </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> open access “movements” on the one hand and the “boots-on-the-ground” practicalities of managing </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other. Crusades for and controversies about </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> “open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually do, and now seem more of a </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> distraction than a help or guide.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library can’t mandate self-archiving, can’t fund </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe, if you look at the evidence that </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could encourage the administration… And </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can help with mediated self-archiving, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly necessary, for a few keystrokes — certainly </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking down the PDF. checking the rights. etc.). </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green” open access; and we have appreciated </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> “holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I sympathize with his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of this response will be interpreted as attempting </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if these answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> but that is all I can manage at this time.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Much appreciated, Paul! </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other IRs, mandated and unmandated. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Best wishes, </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Stevan </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Paul Royster</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> Coordinator of Scholarly Communications</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> University of Nebraska–Lincoln</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="mailto:proyster@unl.edu">proyster@unl.edu</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> GOAL mailing list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> GOAL mailing list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> GOAL mailing list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> GOAL mailing list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> GOAL mailing list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">>> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> GOAL mailing list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> <A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></FONT>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>