On 3 Jan 2012, at 18:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: > That's UNMANDATED repositories, of course. > > MANDATED repositories are far more successful than either Mendeley or > unmandated repositories: > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/greenmand60.png
I've just realised that I made THREE posts, and the link to the third went missing! Many apologies for presenting half an argument. The rest of it (my original work) is available on my blog: http://repositoryman.blogspot.com/2010/08/comparing-social-sharing-of.html My conclusion was that a particular discipline (Computer Science) in Mendeley was about as successful as our mandated departmental repository. In other words, IN THEORY, the whole of Mendeley would be equivalent to a THEORETICAL institutional repository which had equivalent institutional mandate compliance to the departmental compliance of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. Whether that is still true at the beginning of 2012, I don't know. Mendeley is a combination of there services (1) a personal bibliographic tool (aka EndNote) (2) a web/social bibliographic sharing service (3) an open access sharing service (which is a public extension of #2). Its huge success is definitely slanted towards #1, and the hope is that there will be some kind of "trickle-down" towards #3 . -- Les > > > Stevan > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Les A Carr <lac -- ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>> Date: January 3, 2012 11:24:40 AM EST >>> Subject: Re: Mendeley users >>> >>> ...I did do a couple of analyses of Mendeley effectiveness for OA about 12 >>> months ago. >>> You can see my writeups here: >>> >>> http://repositoryman.blogspot.com/2011/06/mendeley-download-vs-upload-growth.html >>> and >>> http://repositoryman.blogspot.com/2011/06/mendeley-measuring-oa-rates.html >>> >>> ...Mendley is not any more successful in providing OA than repositories >>> are and in fact it is very disappointing in the number of open PDFs that it >>> has created... >>> >>> I have detailed spreadsheets and can redo the analyses if they are >>> interesting/useful. >>> -- >>> les >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 24 Dec 2011, at 04:06, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>> >>> Arthur, >>> >>> Thanks for the data about Mendeley. I have a few questions about things I >>> don't understand; >>> >>> 1.4 million people have downloaded and installed Mendeley, from 32,000 >>> institutions. This means little, I think, though giving us another estimate >>> of the number of research institutions. That there are 122,000 groups >>> totally dwarfs the number of institutional repositories >>> >>> As far as I can tell, groups are subsets of people who have agreed to share >>> their reference lists. This is the power set of the number of institutions, >>> indeed of the number of individuals, so it is bound to be huge, given the >>> number of k/N subgroupings are combinatorially possible! >>> >>> and 143 million articles is not to be sneezed at, though there is doubtless >>> a lot of replicates. >>> >>> But what are they. Assuming they are indeed full-texts and not just >>> bibliographic citations (of writings by Aristotle, for example) what we >>> need to know is what percentage of total papers published in (say) 2010 >>> they represent. (About 20% is the figure to beat. That's the spontaneous >>> UNMANDATED self-archiving rate -- including both websites and repositories. >>> Seventy percent would be the figure to match or beat for MANDATED >>> self-archiving. >>> >>> To pursue the analysis a bit further, if the eight ID/OA mandated >>> institutions have about 1000 academics each on overage, thatâs 8,000 >>> authors. The 200 dubious mandates contribute 1000 x 200 x 10% = 20,000 >>> people, making 28,000 people contributing. >>> >>> I'm not quite sure why we are counting these authors from mandating >>> institutions. The percentage of Mendel-OA papers per year is one benchmark. >>> Another is the percentage of Mendel-OA papers at a given UNMANDATED >>> institution. >>> >>> Do you see why I am now interested in the âsocial mediaâ pull rather >>> than the IR push? >>> >>> Not yet, I'm afraid. What are needed in order to judge how well Mendel-OA >>> is doing relative to gold OA, unmandated green OA ad mandated green OA is >>> the comparative percentages I mention above. >>> >>> This perhaps begins to answer whether I can I justify my excitement? >>> >>> Mendeley is an exciting, useful tool -- but whether it is accelerating OA >>> is not at all clear from the data you cite. (And I'm not clear on how how >>> Mendeley stocks up: Only through authors importing, or does it also harvest >>> from what's already on the web (i.e., unmandated green OA>? >>> >>> Chrs, S >>> >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
