On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote: > Dear Stevan: > > Here is a query from a CSIR librarian (at National Institute of > Oceanography, Goa). Why is it that not all entries in OAIster > have full text? he asks.
Dear Arun, The answer is very simple: Because only 15% of OA's target content (the annual 2.5 million full-text research articles published in the world's 24,000 journals) is as yet being self-archived, worldwide. http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm That is OA's problem. That is why we do not yet have 100% OA. And that is why so much of OAIster http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ and even of most institutional "OA" repository content http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse is currently just *metadata,* not full-text. And the solution is also 100% clear: As and when the institutions that produce the 2.5 million annual research articles in the 24,000 journals (and the research-funders that fund it) *mandate* that the articles they produce must be self-archived, we will have 100% OA. The publishers are not to blame. 92% of them have already given their green light to self-archiving. They cannot be expected to perform the authors' keystrokes for them! http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php In a sense the researchers are to blame, because 85% of them do not yet self-archive all their work. But the latest JISC author survey (Swan & Brown 2005) Swan, Alma and Brown, Sheridan (2005) Open access self-archiving: An author study. Technical Report, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), UK FE and HE funding councils (not yet published). Preprint: http://cogprints.org/4385/ indicates as clearly as one can indicate to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that the researchers themselves *state explicitly* that they are quite busy and that -- just as they *publish* only because of the publish-or-perish carrot/stick incentives their institutions and funders have in place -- they will only self-archive if and when their institutions and funders *require* them to do self-archive. But if and when their institutions and funders do require them to do so, 81% (of the over 1300 sampled researchers worldwide, across all disciplines) respond that they *will* self-archive, and self-srchive *willingly* (14% will self-archive reluctantly, and 5% respond that they will not comply). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/alma-amst.ppt The actual results for the only two institutions worldwide that have so far actually implemented such a self-archiving mandate -- (1) the Southampton University Department of Electronics and Computer Science and (2) CERN -- have borne this out completely. Their self-archiving rates for their current annual research output are now both over 90%: http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk%2F http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdsweb.cern.ch%2F So there is your answer, Arun! The rest is just about when institutions and funders will go ahead and do the obvious, in order to reach the optimal and inevitable (100% OA). The signs are positive (University of Bielefeld is the lastest to announce a clear, definitive self-archiving policy), http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php but the rate of institutional OA self-archiving policy adoption is still awaiting its definitive growth-spurt. Let us hope that that will come with the long-awaited and imminent announcement of the RCUK policy recommendation: "Will the RCUK support OA?" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4464.html if that indeed takes the form recommended by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee and the Berlin Declaration: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html Best wishes, Stevan > Arun > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dr. Murari P Tapaswi" > To: "Subbiah Arunachalam" > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > Subject: Re: [LIS-Forum] Promoting open Access > > > Dear Dr Arunachalam, > > > > I always read many of your mails on OA with interest and curse myself > > because I am, so far, unable to contribute anything in this area. > > > > I tried to reach to the link you provided below and had a test search > > (searched on Indian ocean AND nodules). It retrieved 4 items. Of the 4 > > items > > only 1 item had a full-text access. Is it not a waste of time to do this > > exercise with a hope that we would get access to the full-text literature? > > Please pardon me for a straight question. > > > > Regards, - Tapaswi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Subbiah Arunachalam" > > To: "c3net" <c3...@dgroups.org>; <oa-in...@dgroups.org>; > > <lis-fo...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:01 PM > > Subject: [LIS-Forum] Promoting open Access > > > > > > Friends: > > > > Promoting open access has at least two parts. One is to set up an archive > > at one's own institution, as Rajashekar had done at IISc, and populate it > > with the institution's research papers quickly. The second part is to help > > the > > faculty and students (and researchers in general) to take advantage of the > > increasing number of papers in the world's open archives. > > > > Please tell all your clients (research scientists, professors and > > students) to search for papers relevant to their work using > > http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?c=oaister;page=simple. > > > > There are 5,475,850 records from 480 institutions as of 5 June 2005. And > > the number is increasing every day. > > > > Best wishes. > > > > Arun > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LIS-Forum mailing list > >> lis-fo...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in > >> http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum > >> >