On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Éric Archambault < eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
> Stevan and other proponents of OA are adamant that embargoes are > unacceptable. It is a huge fight, a very unequal one. What is likely to > happen to give the final word to these advocates and lead to embargo > elimination is the fact that embargoed journals are not going to get the > citations that green-friendly journals are going to get. This will mean > that embargoed journals are going to receive lower Journal Impact Factors > (JIF), as computed by Thomson Reuters. > I still hope it will happen sooner than that: not having to wait for journal publishers to conclude that they are losing citations because of Green OA embargoes, hence losing authors and subscribers, hence deciding to stop embargoing Green OA. Rather, I hope authors, their institutions and their funders will conclude -- much sooner -- that they are losing citations because of Green OA embargoes despite mandatory immediate deposit <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>, and that they will (first) implement their repository's copy-request Button <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy> to provide "almost-OA" during the Green OA embargo (and then let nature -- and human nature -- take its natural course...) *Not only am I certain that mandating and providing universal immediate-Green-OA will provide 100% OA (and that that will eventually lead to subscriptions becoming unsustainable, forcing a transition to universal Fair-Gold OA) but I am almost as confident that mandating and providing universal immediate-deposit <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/> plus immediate Almost-OA via the copy-request Button will have much the same effect.* > No need to waste money on Fool's Gold <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/> now; mandating immediate-deposit plus the Button is enough... SH Despite all the complaints about the JIF, the JIF is widely used, and a > lower IF means receiving fewer and sometimes lower quality manuscripts, a > vicious circle that will erode a journal’s prestige. Embargoes are also > going to encourage authors to seek publications in gold journals and to > experiment with new venues that offer a more innovative, more disruptive > model. This means that publishers who insist on an embargo period are going > to hurt their journals by lowering their intrinsic value and > competitiveness. Though research to date has concentrated on how much green > increases the citedness of individual articles, the same effect can only be > reflected in aggregate for journals – this is a mechanical truth. This > lowering of the impact factor will be helped by the prescribed use of DOI > from the birth of papers as many publishers are insisting that preprints > carry the final version DOI and point to the paying version of articles. So > although publishers may see embargoes as helping to protect the value of > their subscription-based journals, quite the opposite is very likely to > happen. > > > > This is a serious consideration as strictly subscription-based papers > (with no archiving) have the least impact on average in 7 out of 22 > academic/scientific fields. See > http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf > p.24. > > > > It is therefore an essential practice to generalize the use of a single > homogeneous DOI in all archives to help Thomson Reuters accurately compute > the aggregate impact of papers and of journals, and to monitor the adverse > effect of embargoes on the reputation of journals. > > > > Eric Archambault > > Science-Metrix > > _______________________________________________ > 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
