On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote:
part of the 30% (however it is calculated - is it 30% of WoS articles?) > comes from the Gold road, and, therefore, falls under a different kind of > argument. Yes, it's based on WoS articles (hence an underestimate of the total) and includes both Green and Gold OA. Here are some data from a couple of years ago, when Green OA was about 20%: Gold OA was about 2%: Gargouri, Yassine, Lariviere, Vincent, Gingras, Yves, Carr, Les and Harnad, Stevan (2012) Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by Discipline. In: *17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI)*, 5-8 September, 2012, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Montréal. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/ Stevan Harnad On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > I will let readers evaluate whether Stevan's answers are satisfactory or > not. Except for the Liège mandate where I did not express myself > sufficiently precisely, I disagree with points I--III, V-VI. > > I agree that point VII deserves being studied more precisely. > > For point VIII, part of the 30% (however it is calculated - is it 30% of > WoS articles?) comes from the Gold road, and, therefore, falls under a > different kind of argument. This said, I believe that Liège's solution is > the best one presently available,* if you can get it*. In countries where > university autonomy is far from being the norm (e.g. France), the clout of > in-house assessments of performance is perforce very limited. > > Promoting the Liège solution is also what I do, and I do so everywhere, > but promoting OA publishing platforms (such as Redalyc and, with some > caveats, Scielo) that are both free and gratis is also what I do. IMHO, > this is superior to promoting only and exclusively the Green road: it adds > to the Green road without subtracting anything from it. This was also the > spirit of BOAI. > > Finally, I do not need any fancy statistical footwork to agree that the > ways and means of the Liège mandate are the best. Common sense is enough > for me. > > Let us get the Liège form of mandate wherever we can (which I am presently > trying to do in my own university), and let us also do all we can to > promote OA for all (including all disciplines). > > And I will stop this thread here. > > -- > > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > > Le vendredi 19 septembre 2014 à 13:17 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > *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 > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
