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 GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
