*I.* A Web-of-Science-based estimate of Green OA mandate effectiveness — i.e., of *the annual percentage of institutional journal article output that is being self-archived in the institutional repository *— is fine. So is one based on SCOPUS, or on any other index of annual journal article output across disciplines.
*II.* The fact that books are more important than journals in SSH (social science and humanities) in no way invalidates WoS-based estimates of Green OA mandate effectiveness. *The mandates apply only to journal articles.* *III. *Green OA mandates to date apply only to journal articles, not books, for many obvious reasons. *IV.* Jean-Claude writes: *“Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know.” * *Cf:* *“The University of Liege policy is mandatory… the Administrative Board of the University has decided to make it mandatory for all ULg members: - to deposit the bibliographic references of ALL their publications since 2002; - to deposit the full text of ALL their articles published in periodicals since 2002…*” http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/ *V.* The fact that research metrics are currently mostly journal-article based has nothing to do with the predictive power of estimates of Green OA mandate effectiveness. *VI*. The WoS-based estimate of Green OA mandate effectiveness has nothing to do with “impact factor folly.” *VII.* Jean-Claude writes:“SSH authors are less interested in depositing articles than STM researchers.” As far as I know, there is not yet any objective evidence supporting this assertion. In fact, we are in the process of testing it, using the WoS data. *VIII*. *Status quo*: OA to journal articles is around 30% today. Our practical solution: Green OA mandates (and tests for which kinds of mandate are most effective) so they can be promoted for adoption. Other practical solutions? Stevan Harnad On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive > tsunami mode... > > 1. Stevan admits that his evaluation of compliance is an approximation, > easy to get, but not easy to correct. This approximation varies greatly > from one institution to another, one circumstance to another. For example, > he admits that language plays a role; he should further admit that the > greater or smaller proportion of SSH researchers in the research > communities of various institutions will also play a role. in short, > comparing two institutions by simply using WoS approximations appears rash > and unacceptable to me, rather than simply quick and dirty (which I would > accept as a first approximation). > > The impact factor folly was mentioned because, by basing his approximation > on the WoS, Stevan reinforces the centrality of a partial and questionable > tool that is, at best, a research tool, not a management tool, and which > stands behind all the research assessment procedures presently used in > universities, laboratories, etc. > > 2. Stevan and I have long differed about OA's central target. He limits > himself to journal articles, as a first step; I do not. I do not because, > in the humanities and social sciences, limiting oneself to journal articles > would be limiting oneself to the less essential part of the archive we work > with, unlike natural scientists. > > Imagine a universe where a research metric would have been initially > designed around SSH disciplines and then extended as is to STM. In such a > parallel universe, books would be the currency of choice, and articles > would look like secondary, minor, productions, best left for later > assessments. Then, one prominent OA advocate named Stenan Harvard might > argue that the only way to proceed forward is to focus only on books, that > this is OA's sole objective, and that articles and the rest will be treated > later... Imagine the reaction of science researchers... > > 3. Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into > the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess > performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions. If > books and book chapters are more difficult to treat than articles, then > place them in a dark archive with a button. This was the clever solution > invented by Stevan and I agree with it. > > 4. To obtain mandates, you need either faculty to vote a mandate on itself > (but few universities have done so), or you need administrators to impose a > mandate, but that is often viewed negatively by many of our colleagues. > Meanwhile, they are strongly incited to publish in "prestigious journals" > where prestige is "measured" by impact factors. From an average > researcher's perspective, one article in Nature, fully locked behind > pay-walls, is what is really valuable. Adding open access may be the cherry > on the sundae, but it is not the sundae. The result? OA, as of now, is not > perceived to be directly significant for successfully managing a career. > > On the other hand, the OA citation advantage has been fully recognized and > accepted by publishers. That is in part why they are finally embracing OA: > with high processing charges and the increased citation potential of OA, > they can increase revenues even more and satisfy their stakeholders. This > is especially true if funders, universities, libraries, etc., are willing > to pay for the APC's. This is the trap the UK fell into. > > 5. SSH authors are less interested in depositing articles than STM > researchers because, for SSH researchers, articles have far less importance > than books (see above), and, arguably, book chapters. > > 6. I am not citing rationales for the status quo, and Stevan knows this > well. This must be the first time that I have ever been associated with the > status quo... Could it be that criticizing Stevan on one point could be > seen by him as fighting for the status? But that would be true only if > Stevan were right beyond the slightest doubt. Hmmmmmmmmmm! > > I personally think he is right on some points and not so right on others. > > Also, I am simply trying to think about reasons why OA has been so hard to > achieve so far, and, in doing so, I have come to two conclusions: too > narrow an objective and too rigid an approach can both be > counter-productive. > > This said, trying to have a method to compare deposit rates in various > institutional and mandate circumstances would be very useful. I support > Stevan's general objective in this regard; I simply object to the validity > of the method he suggests. Alas, I have little to suggest beyond my > critique. > > I also suggest that a better understanding of the sociology of research > (not the sociology of knowledge) is crucial to move forward. > > Finally, I expect that if I saw Stevan self-archive his abundant > scientific production, I would be awed by the lightning speed of his > keystrokes. But are they everybody's keystrokes? > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > -- > > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
