On 2012-01-03, at 1:01 PM, Les Carr wrote: >> ...Mendley is not any more successful in providing OA than repositories
That's UNMANDATED repositories, of course. MANDATED repositories are far more successful than either Mendeley or unmandated repositories: http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/greenmand60.png Stevan > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Les A Carr <lac -- ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> Date: January 3, 2012 11:24:40 AM EST >> Subject: Re: Mendeley users >> >> ...I did do a couple of analyses of Mendeley effectiveness for OA about 12 >> months ago. >> You can see my writeups here: >> >> http://repositoryman.blogspot.com/2011/06/mendeley-download-vs-upload-growth.html >> and >> http://repositoryman.blogspot.com/2011/06/mendeley-measuring-oa-rates.html >> >> ...Mendley is not any more successful in providing OA than repositories >> are and in fact it is very disappointing in the number of open PDFs that it >> has created... >> >> I have detailed spreadsheets and can redo the analyses if they are >> interesting/useful. >> -- >> les >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Dec 2011, at 04:06, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >> Arthur, >> >> Thanks for the data about Mendeley. I have a few questions about things I >> don't understand; >> >> 1.4 million people have downloaded and installed Mendeley, from 32,000 >> institutions. This means little, I think, though giving us another estimate >> of the number of research institutions. That there are 122,000 groups >> totally dwarfs the number of institutional repositories >> >> As far as I can tell, groups are subsets of people who have agreed to share >> their reference lists. This is the power set of the number of institutions, >> indeed of the number of individuals, so it is bound to be huge, given the >> number of k/N subgroupings are combinatorially possible! >> >> and 143 million articles is not to be sneezed at, though there is doubtless >> a lot of replicates. >> >> But what are they. Assuming they are indeed full-texts and not just >> bibliographic citations (of writings by Aristotle, for example) what we need >> to know is what percentage of total papers published in (say) 2010 they >> represent. (About 20% is the figure to beat. That's the spontaneous >> UNMANDATED self-archiving rate -- including both websites and repositories. >> Seventy percent would be the figure to match or beat for MANDATED >> self-archiving. >> >> To pursue the analysis a bit further, if the eight ID/OA mandated >> institutions have about 1000 academics each on overage, thatâs 8,000 >> authors. The 200 dubious mandates contribute 1000 x 200 x 10% = 20,000 >> people, making 28,000 people contributing. >> >> I'm not quite sure why we are counting these authors from mandating >> institutions. The percentage of Mendel-OA papers per year is one benchmark. >> Another is the percentage of Mendel-OA papers at a given UNMANDATED >> institution. >> >> Do you see why I am now interested in the âsocial mediaâ pull rather >> than the IR push? >> >> Not yet, I'm afraid. What are needed in order to judge how well Mendel-OA is >> doing relative to gold OA, unmandated green OA ad mandated green OA is the >> comparative percentages I mention above. >> >> This perhaps begins to answer whether I can I justify my excitement? >> >> Mendeley is an exciting, useful tool -- but whether it is accelerating OA is >> not at all clear from the data you cite. (And I'm not clear on how how >> Mendeley stocks up: Only through authors importing, or does it also harvest >> from what's already on the web (i.e., unmandated green OA>? >> >> Chrs, S >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
