The reason people deposit in ResearchGate is because it keeps going after them, with impact data and incentives.
That's what institutional repositories ought to be doing, with their own institutional researchers: alerts, notifications, tracking their own output weekly in WoK and SCOPUS and contacting their authors, just as ResearchIndex does. There is no reason whatsoever why an arXiv deposit or a ResearchGate posting should have greater visibility or impact than depositing in one's own Green IR. (IRs should also make sure they are maximally discoverable by Google Scholar.) All obvious stuff. Just a matter of doing it. Ceding to the siren call of predators like Elsevier and its predatory products and services is an easy and thoughtless institutional cop-out that just keeps their research in bondage -- and leaves them the loser in the end. SH On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Isidro F. Aguillo < isidro.agui...@cchs.csic.es> wrote: > Hi all, > > Jessica is right, the number of PURE instances as PUBLIC repositories are > still low, but probably the number of them as CLOSED CRIS managers is > probably higher (although still not very large). The problem is there is a > tendency to use CRIS (managed by burocrats) instead of OA IRs (managed by > librarians) as commercial people is selling systems like PURE also as good > repository managers. In my personal view PURE design is greenOA killer as > deposit it is not its primary aim (not required). > > Why authors are supporting the move to PURE? Probably the same reason they > are depositing far more in ResearchGate or Academia than in the GreenOA > IRs: Ugly interfaces, no profiles, useless metrics, ... > > Your turn, > > > On 18/05/2016 15:01, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > > Thank you for checking this. > > However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, Thomson-Reuters, > Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good military leaders, they > constantly try and test to see what sticks and works. For the moment, > Pure's presence is small, but the parent company learns through this > limited presence, and it obviously studies ways to make it more appealing > to the repository community. > > This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters. > Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML format, > and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be included in > the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of Scholar One. Now > their work flow is dependent upon this software tool to such an extent that > moving out of Scholar One will be very costly. > > This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the first > time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier is getting > closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert Maxwell when he > tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene Garfield's hands, so > as to be both judge and party in the evaluation of journals. Reading how > they gloat about this is also instructive: > https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering > . > > We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in which > power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and fast. > > But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking. > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +0000, Jessica Lindholm a écrit : > > Hi Ross (et al.), Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure > instances as you mentioned that many institutional repositories run on > Pure. Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories ( > http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas > e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I > am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is containing exhaustive data > (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about > PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are many.. Regards > Jessica Lindholm *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [ > mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of > *Ross Mounce *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54 *To:* Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> <goal@eprints.org> *Subject:* Re: > [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier > > Elsevier have actually done a really good job of > infiltrating institutional repositories too: > > > http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/ > > > > They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software > that many of world's institutional repositories run on. > > I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further > monetise academic IP. > > > > Best, > > > > Ross > > > > > > > > > > On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr> > wrote: > > Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories > worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional > repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better > solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better > connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. > > > > ----- Mail d'origine ----- De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> À: > Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Envoyé: > Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to > Elsevier > > > > Shame on SSRN. > > > > Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley): > > > > It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed > scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer > needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as > a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a > legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era. > > > > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated > expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is > that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide > is not for sale, and that is their strength... > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk < > bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote: > > This is an interesting news item which should interest the readers of this > list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale. Bo-Christer Björk > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > *Subject:* > Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman > > *Date:* > Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT) > > *From:* > Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com> <ad...@ssrn.com> > > *Reply-To:* > supp...@ssrn.com > > *To:* > bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi > > > > [image: Web Bug from > http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740] > [image: http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png] > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://www.ssrn.com> > [image: > http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif] > > > > Dear SSRN Authors, > > > > SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is joining > Mendeley <https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> andElsevier > <https://www.elsevier.com> to coordinate our development and delivery of > new products and services, and we look forward to our new access to data, > products, and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg > Gordon’s Elsevier > <https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier> > Connect > <https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier> > post) > > > > Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools that > enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been at the > forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are committed to > continue our innovation and this change will enable that to happen more > quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the vast new data and resources > available, including Mendeley’s reference management and personal library > management tools, their new researcher profile capabilities, and social > networking features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN > members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as those > powered by Scopus <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and Newsflo > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://www.newsflo.net> > (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier > together can cooperatively build bridges to close the divide between the > previously separate worlds and workflows of working papers and published > papers. > > > > We realize that this change may create some concerns about the intentions > of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working paper repository. I > shared this concern. But after much discussion about this matter and others > in determining if Mendeley and Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am > convinced that they would be good stewards of our mission. And our > copyright policies are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to > host only papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have > some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will be > surmountable. > > > > Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best served > being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in the evolving > landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit from being more > interconnected and with the resources available from a larger organization. > For example, there is scale in systems administration and security, and > SSRN can provide more value to users with access to more data and > resources. > > > > On a personal note, it has been an honor to be involved over the past 25 > years in the founding and growth of the SSRN website and the incredible > community of authors, researchers and institutions that has made this all > possible. I consider it one of my great accomplishments in life. The > community would not have been successful without the commitment of so many > of you who have contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we > have created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support in > this effort. > > > > The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and > myself), the Rochester office is still in place, it will still be free to > upload and download papers, and we remain committed to “Tomorrow’s Research > Today”. I look forward to and am committed to a successful transition and > to another great 25 years for the SSRN community that rivals the first. > > > > Michael C. Jensen > > > > Founder & Chairman, SSRN > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Search > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/> > the SSRN eLibrary > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/> > | Browse > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm> > SSRN > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm>| > Top > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm> > Papers > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > -- > > -- > -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- > Ross Mounce, PhD > > Software Sustainability Institute Fellow 2016 Dept. of Plant Sciences, > University of Cambridge www.rossmounce.co.uk <http://rossmounce.co.uk/> > -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- > > > ************************************************************** > Isidro F. Aguillo > Dr. Honoris Causa Universitas Indonesia > Dr. Honoris Causa National Research Nuclear University Moscow > Editor Rankings Web > Cybermetrics Lab - Scimago Group, IPP-CSIC > Madrid. SPAIN > isidro.agui...@csic.es > ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 > ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 > Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ > Twitter @isidroaguillo > Rankings webometrics.info > *************************************************************** > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Libre > de virus. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
