Hi Peter, I have been working on institutional publication collaboration and have some data maybe useful to you.
The proportion is discipline dependent, but university is always the major contributor: Computer science (ACM publications from 1950-2010) University 62% Research Institutes 5% Company 19% Unknown 14% (Missing or unable to recognise) Pharmacology (ISI from 1973-2011) Company 13% Research Institute 28% University 60% Material Science (ISI from 1973-2011) Company 2.5% Research Institute 10% University 87.5% Law (ISI from 1973-2011) Company 0% Research Institute 15% University 85% Psycology (ISI from 1973-2011) Company 0% Research Institute 10% University 90% Please not that these proportions are authorship percentages, i.e. 90% of university means 90% of author is affiliated with an university. Let me know if you need anything else. Best Jiadi On 02/05/2012 17:57, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Hi Jiadi, could you post your findings on the following to goal, please: > > >>> 7 What proportion of publications come from "Universities" or other >>> organizations that potentially support self-archiving infrastructure? >>> [I guess about 80%. Publications from industry, research >>> institutions, >>> hospitals, field stations, etc. should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or >>> substandard.] >> >> Don't know. Preumably depends on the discipline. >> >> Les Carr's and my student, Jiadi Yao, has some limited data on the >> proportion of university, research institute and corporate research in >> some fields. I will ask him to post. (I agree that refereed research >> from all sources is relevant, and the standard depends on the >> peer-review standards of the journal that accepts it.) > > Thanks, S > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com >> <mailto:amsciforum at gmail.com>> >> *Date: *May 2, 2012 12:10:39 PM EDT >> *To: *"Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" >> <goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>> >> *Subject: **Re: What is Green Open Access and how is it practised? >> Some questions* >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk >> <mailto:pm286 at cam.ac.uk>> wrote: >> >>> If we are being pragmatic, it is necessary to know the facts on which we >>> base our strategy. >>> >>> I will publicly admit that I do not understand the goals of "Green Open >>> Access". >>> >>> I would like to ask a set of (hopefully simple) factual questions about >>> Green. Please humour me by only answering the questions. I may have >>> wrong >>> assumptions - that why I am asking. >>> >>> 1 does Green OA require the archival of complete published fulltext? >>> [My assumption is YES] >> >> Yes, the author's refereed final draft or higher. >> >>> 2 does Green OA depend on publishers agreeing to authors self-archiving >>> their manuscripts? >>> [My assumption is YES] >> >> No. It depends on authors self-archiving their manuscripts. >> >>> 3 is there any "official organization" that *formally* negotiates >>> Green OA >>> with publishers? >>> [My assumption is NO] >> >> No. But the majority of journals (and almost all the top ones) already >> endorse immediate Green OA. >> >>> 4 what percentage of publishers currently forbid Green OA as defined >>> in Q1? >>> [My assumption is about 40%] >> >> About 35% of journals, about 40% of publishers. >> >>> 5 How many institutions do Green OA mandates potentially apply to? >>> [I estimate between 1000 and 10000] >> >> All research institutions (universities and research institutes) >> worldwide, which is presumably at least as many as the higher >> figure... >> >>> 6 Is there one or more global organization *formally* coordinating these >>> institutions? >>> [I suspect NO] >> >> No. They are an anarchic network, like the Web. (But the repositories >> are at least OAI-interoperable.) >> >>> 7 What proportion of publications come from "Universities" or other >>> organizations that potentially support self-archiving infrastructure? >>> [I guess about 80%. Publications from industry, research >>> institutions, >>> hospitals, field stations, etc. should NOT be dismissed as irrelevant or >>> substandard.] >> >> Don't know. Preumably depends on the discipline. >> >> Les Carr's and my student, Jiadi Yao, has some limited data on the >> proportion of university, research institute and corporate research in >> some fields. I will ask him to post. (I agree that refereed research >> from all sources is relevant, and the standard depends on the >> peer-review standards of the journal that accepts it.) >> >>> 8. How many institutions currently offer Green OA? >>> [I think Peter Suber recently suggested about 1500 have repos]. >> >> ROAR has the current figures for repositories. (But most are >> unmandated, and hence only contain a small percentage of the >> full-texts of the institution's total annual refereed research >> output.) >> >>> 9 what is the current full economic cost of a self-archived >>> manuscript in a >>> (a) UK University? (b) Elsewhere? >>> [see below] >> >> Negligibly small, per paper. And would be even smaller if the >> repositories were mandated, hence full, rather than unmandated, and >> near empty. >> >>> 10. Is there any agreed mechanism for (a) humans (b) machines to >>> tell that >>> an object in a repo is a Green manuscript? >>> [I assume MAYBE for (a) and NO for (b)] >> >> A human can certainly tell, by inspection. No mechanism for machines >> yet, as far as I know (though it's feasible). But as long as the >> percentage OA is a sparse as it is, it's hardly urgent to develop such >> a mechanism. What's urgent is to mandate deposit. >> >>> 11. Is there any SIMPLE way of finding all Green manuscripts across all >>> repos? [I assume NO.] >> >> Not yet. Nor is it urgent, while OA content is so sparse. But it's >> feasible. The much more urgent priority is mandating deposit of the >> content. >> >>> 12. How is the compliance of authors in depositing Green OA measured? By >>> whom? [I assume this has to be done by an institution and this >>> requires them >>> to (a) know how many publications have been published by "their >>> staff" and >>> (b) know how many are in the repo. I assume it is the aggregation of >>> these >>> figures that gives the "20%" green figure. >> >> Most institutions are not systematically measuring this yet, but >> samples have been tested webwide (and not just for repositories, but >> also authors' websites) and 20% seems to be a good ballpark figure. >> >> Mandated repositories are more likely to measure annual deposit rate, >> and effectively implemented mandates (like Southampton ECS, QUT, Minho >> and Liege) capture over 70% of their annual refereed research output. >> >>> 13 How many institutions know and publish metrics of Green deposition >>> including a percentage of the possible?. >> >> For the vast majority of institutions that lack mandates, this >> percentage would not be very useful. Yassine Gargouri is doing %OA >> analyses for the institutions with effective mandates, and comparing >> them with weak and no mandates. >> >>> 14. The goal of Green OA is, as I understand it, for all >>> Universities [sic] >>> to put copies of all their peer-reviewed publications into a >>> professionally >>> supported Institutional repository. YES/NO >> >> All research institutions, which includes universities, research >> institutes and corporate R&D centres. >> >>> 15. Can Green OA deliver 100% of the scholarly literature [sic]? >>> [I assume NO]. >> >> Yes, if all institutions and funders mandate Green OA. >> >>> If not what is a figure that proponents would feel represented >>> a major >>> positive outcome ("success")? >> >> If all institutions and funders adopt (effective) Green OA mandates, >> close to 100% of refereed research would be OA. That's the only >> outcome worth aiming for. >> >>> [*] I think PeterS suggested about 1.5-5 FTEs per IR. Assume 2, and cost >>> each at 100K USD Full economic costs. I trawled UK Universities and >>> found >>> that they had between 500 and 10000 items. Not all of these are final >>> manuscripts - some are theses (although these are so heterogeneously >>> archived it's almost impossible to know) and some are other artifacts. >>> Assume 1000 deposits per year (and I think that is optimistic) and >>> you get >>> over 100USD per manuscript, not including researcher time. I don't think >>> that this reduces dramatically by volume as many manuscripts require >>> assistance from the repo staff. >> >> Repositories are created and used for other purposes than OA. But even >> if they were just for OA, the cost per paper for an unmandated >> repository is uninformative, except to show that a repository is not >> worth much unless deposit is mandated. >> >> For a repository that is capturing 100% of its annual research output, >> the cost per paper deposited is negligibly small. >> >> Stevan Harnad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120502/97ec4e0c/attachment-0001.html
