A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive tsunami mode...
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). 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. 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. 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... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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! I personally think he is right on some points and not so right on others. 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. 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. I also suggest that a better understanding of the sociology of research (not the sociology of knowledge) is crucial to move forward. 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? Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 12:28 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon > <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > > Most interesting dialogue. > > I will focus on two points: > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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.) > > > The WoS (or SCOPUS, or other) standardized database provides the > denominator against which the deposits of those articles provide the > numerator. > > > Once that ratio is known (for WoS articles, for example), it provides > an estimate of the proportion of total institutional article output > deposited. > > > 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.) > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > But R is still by far the easiest and fastest way to get an estimate > of institutional deposit percentages. > > > (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.) > > > 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. > > > > Authors are welcome to deposit as much as they like: articles, > chapters, books, data, software. > > > But OA's primary target (and also its primary obstacle) is journal > articles. Ditto for OA mandates. > > > 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. > > > There are problems with mandating book deposit, or even book chapter > deposit, so that is being left for later. > > > Nothing is being said about performance review except that the way to > submit journal articles should be stipulated to be repository deposit. > > 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 refereed > journal article publications for annual performance review is > to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR ". > > > Liège does not mandate the deposit of books. > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > Yes, once journal articles are being self-archived universally, many > other things will follow. > > > 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! > > > Stevan Harnad > > > Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a > écrit : > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > > > > > > Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster > > > Date: September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4 > > > > > > To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster > > > <proyst...@unl.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further > > > > muddying the waters of scholarly communications, > > > > but in response to direct questions posed in this venue > > > > earlier this month, I shall venture the following … > > > > > > > > Answers for Dr. Harnad > > > > > > > > (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of > > > > peer-revewed journal articles (only) per year is > > > > deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I > > > > furnished your graduate student (at least he > > > > said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data > > > > so he could compare it to Web of Science > > > > publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure > > > > for this. I cautioned him that I felt Web of > > > > Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed > > > > comparison sample, but I sent the data anyway. > > > > So I expect you will have an answer to this query before > > > > I do. If the news is good, I hope you will > > > > share it with this list; if not, then let your > > > > conscience be your guide. As for benchmarking, I don’t > > > > believe > > > > it is a competition, and every step in the direction of > > > > free scholarship is a positive one. I hope when > > > > they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for > > > > participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine > > > Gargouri, and I just called him to ask about > > > the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have > > > the results of the analysis in 2-3 weeks! > > > > > > > > > So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the > > > data. Apparently Sue was not aware that UNL > > > had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!). > > > > > > > > > > (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? > > > > I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the > > > > black box that is my university’s administration; > > > > so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say > > > > why I have not campaigned for adoption of > > > > such a mandate. My reasons have been purely personal > > > > and idiosyncratic, and I do not hold them > > > > up as a model for anyone else or as representing the > > > > thinking or attitude of this university. Bluntly, > > > > I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel > > > > there are enough regulations and requirements > > > > in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings > > > > further problems of enforcement or compliance, > > > > and it creates new categories of deviance. There are > > > > already too many rules: we have to park in > > > > designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than > > > > Coke products; we have to wear red on game > > > > days; we can’t enter the building through the freight > > > > dock; etc. etc. etc. I simply do not believe in > > > > creating more rules and requirements, even if they are > > > > for our own good. The Faculty Senate > > > > voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have > > > > not desired more than that. But I am > > > > concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in > > > > one medium-sized university town—not > > > > with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly > > > > communications crisis. I see discussions lately > > > > about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I > > > > wonder—who is intended to be bitten? > > > > Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing > > > a few extra keystrokes when a refereed > > > final draft is accepted for publication is really very > > > little, and the potential benefits are huge. Also, > > > there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a > > > self-archiving mandate — if it’s the right > > > self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply > > > indicates that henceforth the way to submit refereed > > > journal article publications for annual performance review > > > is to deposit them in UNL’s IR (rather than > > > however they are being submitted currently) then UNL > > > faculty will comply as naturally as they did > > > when it was mandaed that submissions should be online > > > rather than in hard copy. It’s just a technological > > > upgrade. > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with > > > > author-self-archives? > > > > I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are > > > > responding to Sue’s catalog of various proposed > > > > solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of > > > > manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE, and others”—as > > > > all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to > > > > varying degrees.” I feel we are strong believers and > > > > even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), > > > > and disdainful non-advocates for author-pays models. > > > > But I think we have become aware of the divergence of > > > > interests between the global theoretics of the > > > > open access “movements” on the one hand and the > > > > “boots-on-the-ground” practicalities of managing > > > > a local repository, even one with global reach, on the > > > > other. Crusades for and controversies about > > > > “open access” have come to seem far removed from what we > > > > actually do, and now seem more of a > > > > distraction than a help or guide. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The > > > library can’t mandate self-archiving, can’t fund > > > author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. > > > But maybe, if you look at the evidence that > > > mandates work, and become convinced, then the library > > > could encourage the administration… And > > > of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the > > > library can help with mediated self-archiving, > > > at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s > > > hardly necessary, for a few keystrokes — certainly > > > a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: > > > tracking down the PDF. checking the rights. etc.). > > > > > > > > > > We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of > > > > “green” open access; and we have appreciated > > > > Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that > > > > cause against innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and > > > > “holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. > > > > I sympathize with his weariness, I applaud his > > > > tirelessness, > > > > and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no > > > > part of this response will be interpreted as attempting > > > > to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I > > > > regret if these answers are unsatisfactory or > > > > incomplete, > > > > but that is all I can manage at this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Much appreciated, Paul! > > > > > > > > > Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison > > > with other IRs, mandated and unmandated. > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > Stevan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Royster > > > > Coordinator of Scholarly Communications > > > > University of Nebraska–Lincoln > > > > proys...@unl.edu > > > > http://digitalcommons.unl.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
