On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Sally Morris < sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ** > I have some statistics pertinent to Question 4. They date from 2008, but > I would guess that, if anything, publishers' policies would have become > more relaxed with regard to self-archiving since then > > At that time, over 80% of publishers (as calculated by the number of > articles they publish, rather than strictly number of publishers) permitted > self-archiving of the submitted and/or accepted versionto a personal or > departmental website, over 60% to an institutional repository, and over 40% > to a subject repository. Self-archiving of the final, published version > was, however, very much more restricted at between 5% and 10% > > Authors' perception of what they were allowed to do by their publishing > agreements, however, substantially underestimated the extent to which > self-archiving was in fact permitted for the 'preprint' version, but > overestimated the extent to which it was permitted for the final published > version. > many thanks. I note the complexity of this - different agreements for different types of manuscript and different allowed places. I doubt there is a single author who knows what the rules are in any given case across the publishes they might use. > > The full paper is at http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm > > Sally > > > > > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust > *Sent:* 02 May 2012 08:44 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] What is Green Open Access and how is it practised? > Somequestions > > 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] > 2 does Green OA depend on publishers agreeing to authors self-archiving > their manuscripts? > [My assumption is YES] > 3 is there any "official organization" that *formally* negotiates Green OA > with publishers? > [My assumption is NO] > 4 what percentage of publishers currently forbid Green OA as defined in > Q1? > [My assumption is about 40%] > 5 How many institutions do Green OA mandates potentially apply to? > [I estimate between 1000 and 10000] > 6 Is there one or more global organization *formally* coordinating these > institutions? > [I suspect NO] > 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.] > 8. How many institutions currently offer Green OA? > [I think Peter Suber recently suggested about 1500 have repos]. > 9 what is the current full economic cost of a self-archived manuscript in > a (a) UK University? (b) Elsewhere? > [see below] > 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)] > 11. Is there any SIMPLE way of finding all Green manuscripts across all > repos? > [I assume NO.] > 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. > 13 How many institutions know and publish metrics of Green deposition > including a percentage of the possible?. > > 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 > 15. Can Green OA deliver 100% of the scholarly literature [sic]? > [I assume NO]. > If not what is a figure that proponents would feel represented a > major positive outcome ("success")? > > > > > [*] 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. > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120503/3a57c3a9/attachment.html
