Thank for this Michael. The PEER project page says that the aim of the PEER project is:
'PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research), supported by the EC eContentplus programme, will investigate the effects of the large-scale, systematic depositing of authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts (so called Green Open Access or stage-two research output) on reader access, author visibility, and journal viability, as well as on the broader ecology of European research.' In this the large-scale, systematic depositing of authors' final peer-reviewed manuscripts is equated as 'Green Open Access'. If I used 'green open access' as a short-hand for 'large-scale, systematic depositing of authors' final peer-reviewed manuscripts' is is only because the PEER project does so itself! For third of the pieces of evidence I reported, that having a green paper in the PEER project drives usage on the publishers' site, I explicitly said: There is evidence that green OA through the PEER project actually drives usage at the publisher site. (Emphasis added) so following Dr Rowlands caveat exactly. The PEER project set out to discover the effect of Green OA on journal viability - it has discovered no negative effects. The PEER project set out to discover the effect of Green OA on reader access - it has discovered evidence to suggest that there is increased readership. I do hope that we can get past the ideology and accept the results as they are. David On 30 May 2012, at 14:25, Michael Mabe wrote: > As Chair of the PEER Project Partner Consortium I must remind David that the > caveats made about the usage results don’t allow him to characterise the > results as he has in his last posting. The usage researcher Dr Ian Rowlands > was explicit at the beginning of his presentation about what the results DID > NOT show and asked all commenting to respect that in any tweets or blog > comments. Explicitly in the six month usage report that will be released in a > couple of weeks, the CIBER group say: > > It is important in any communication regarding PEER usage findings to be > clear about the specific aims (and limitations) of the experimental design. > The specific aim is to model the impacts, if any, of the large-scale deposit > of EU-27 authored materials. It is not an experiment with wider ambitions to > model the impact of Green open access more generally. > > In addition (a point also made by Paul Ayris of LIBER in the closing > roundtable of the meeting), while a modest increase in downloads at publisher > sites was observed the reasons for it are not clear. Ian posited a number of > possibilities: artefacts of the experimental set up such as high quality PEER > metadata, the presence of a clickable DOI on the repository version, and the > complex nature of usage paths on the internet. > > All the slides from the conference will be posted at the PEER project site > later today and the full research reports after the final review meeting with > the EC > > Best, Michael > > Michael A Mabe > Chief Executive Officer > International Association of STM Publishers > Prama House, 267 Banbury Road > OXFORD, OX2 7HT, UK > > Mobile: +44 7717 343083 > Phone: +44 1865 339321 > Direct: +44 1865 339324 > Fax: +44 1865 339325 > E-mail: m...@stm-assoc.org > Web: www.stm-assoc.org > > Networking Knowledge Videos > Check out STM´s new short & smart videos about Scholarly Scientific > Publishing – http://www.stmassoc.org/networking-knowledge > > > <ATT00001..txt>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
