That's right. The difference between the actual 7.5%% and the bottom-line
55% (i.e., those who could self-archive today already having the
journal's official blessing) is the minimum. In reality, though, much
closer to 100% could be self-archiving, leaving the gap between what is
immediately possible and what is actual even bigger. (And even for those
publishers who officially state that if their author self-archives,
they refuse to publish the paper, there is still a legal way for the
author to self-archive:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ).
It is for this reason that I have become convinced that the only thing
that will ensure that the research community takes advantage of the
open access that is within its reach is via a natural extension of the
very same policy that ensures that research is published at all, rather
than simply put in a desk drawer: Both research institutions and research
funders need to extend their existing "publish or perish" policies to
"publish with maximized impact" -- by making all research publications
open-access, via either the golden or green road, i.e., by publishing it in
a suitable open-access journal, if one exists, or otherwise by publishing it
in a suitable toll-access journal AND self-archiving it in the author's
own institutional open-access eprint archives.
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/
In other words, by implementing the Berlin Declaration:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm
Stevan Harnad
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Alastair Dryburgh wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> If I understand correctly, the difference between the potential 55-95% of
> articles which could be available via self-archiving per the slide and the
> 7.5% you give below must be due to authors not self-archiving when they
> could ?
>
> Cheers
>
> Alastair
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 06:29
> To: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
> Subject: Re: The Green and Gold Roads to Open Access
>
>
>
> > From: Alastair Dryburgh
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 04:00
> > To: Sally Morris
> > Subject: Protocols for Metadata Harvesting
> >
> > I continue to think about things like ParaCite being a catalyst in the
> move
> > towards open access. Are you aware of any estimates of how much of the
> > recent literature is available in published or almost-as-published form
> > outside the subscription wall ?
>
> Dear Alastair,
>
> The percentage of the annual literatire that is openly accessible varies
> from field to field. In High Energy Physics it is 100% and in chemistry
> it is near 0%. There are about 2,500,000 articles published in 24,000
> refereed journals acrosss all fields and languages each year.
> Of this total, about 10% is available as full-text for free online.
> Of that 10% about 2.5% gets there via open-access journals and the
> remaining 7.5% via author open-access self-archiving.
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif
>
> Cheers, Stevan
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Alastair Dryburgh wrote:
>
> > Stevan
> >
> > Sally Morris suggested you would be the best person to answer the question
> I
> > had below.
> >
> > Your best estimate ?
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Alastair Dryburgh
> > www.alastairdryburgh.co.uk
>
Received on Fri Nov 14 2003 - 01:25:52 GMT
