On Tue, 2 May 2006, Andrew Waller wrote:
> Many thanks for this. The information is very helpful. I've seen the
> 81% compliance figure before. I don't doubt that, once implemented,
> most faculty will comply but many may not be initially very happy about
> doing it nor would it be an easy job at many institutions to establish
> the mandate. Then again, I hope I am wrong about this (perhaps I have
> my cynical cap on today). I wonder how easy or difficult it was for the
> four institutions with mandates to get their mandates set up?
>
> Andrew
Dear Andrew,
I am branching your query to those who set up the mandate, so they can reply
about ease/difficulty. I know that Tom Cochrane at QUT has said it was not
difficult, and is writing up the history and strategy for an article. At
Southampton ECS it was straightforward too -- and soon, I hope, will be
university-wide too. That part took some convincing of the legal specialists,
but with the dual "deposit/release" policy, it was successful.
Best wishes,
Stevan
>
> Estevan Harnad wrote:
>
> >I am re-directing the posting by Andrew Waller (below) from the Ian
> >Gibson thread -- to which it no longer belongs, to the "What Provosts
> >Need to Mandate" thread, which began in 2003:
> >
> > "What Provosts Need to Mandate" (began Dec 2003)
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3241.html
> >
> >I am also giving a pre-emptive data-based answer to Andrew Waller's
> >posting, below:
> >
> > "[O]ur second author international, cross-disciplinary study
> > [1296 respondents], [t]he vast majority of authors (81%) would
> > willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research
> > funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or
> > subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly;
> > 5% would not comply with such a mandate."
> >
> > Swan, A. and Brown, S. (2005) Open access self-archiving: An author
> > study. JISC Technical Report, Key Perspectives Inc.
> > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/
> >
> >The actual experience of the 4 institutions that have mandated
> >self-archiving (CERN, U. Southampton ECS, U. Minho, QUT) has confirmed
> >this: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
> >
> >So the speculation that authors would not comply is incorrect.
> >
> >The way to persuade Provosts and Pro-Vice-Chancellors to mandate it is:
> >
> >(1) To show them the evidence for the dramatic degree to which it
> >enhances usage and impact:
> >http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
> >
> >(2) To show them the survey results and the 4 successful
> >implementations (above)
> >
> >(3) To show them the generic *deposit* policy that also moots all
> >copyright concerns:
> >http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
> >
> >(4) To show them the generic risk analysis:
> >http://eprints.utas.edu.au/266/
> >
> >Stevan Harnad
> >
> >Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 08:19:17 -0600
> >From: Andrew Waller <waller_at_ucalgary.ca>
> >To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> >Subject: Re: Ian Gibson on open access (fwd)
> >
> >Hello. De-lurking for a moment, this is /great/ list of activities that
> >can be used to support mandatory self-archiving but is there a similar
> >fulsome list of activities that can help establish the mandate in the
> >first place? In my mind, the creation of the mandate is a very large
> >obstacle in the road to self-archiving at an institutional level. Many
> >if not most teaching faculty/researchers /hate/ being told that they
> >/have/ to do something (despite the fact that they /have/ to do many,
> >many things in their work lives already; think of all the hoops one has
> >to jump through when applying for and working with major grants),
> >especially these days when there is so much on people's plates.
> >
> >Andrew Waller
> >Serials Librarian
> >Collections Services
> >University of Calgary Library
> >waller_at_ucalgary.ca <mailto:waller_at_ucalgary.ca>
> >(403) 220-8133 voice
> >(403) 284-2109 fax
> >
> >
> >Arthur Sale wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Effective author support policies involve a plethora of activities,
> >>and are well exemplified by the activities undertaken at QUT,
> >>Queensland University and here. No doubt in many other places. They
> >>include (but no university does all):
> >>
> >> * Assistance with uploading the first document (hand-holding).
> >> Maybe devolve this out to departments/faculties/workshops.
> >> * Fall-back positions which allow a subject-librarian, or a
> >> department/faculty office professional, to upload on behalf of
> >> an author who is not computer literate.
> >> * Provision for turning final manuscripts into pdf format (info
> >> about free OSS options and/or a library service).
> >> * Provision of as much [automated] statistical use information as
> >> authors find useful. See for example
> >> http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/es/index.php?action=show_detail_eprint;id=460;year=2006
> >>
> >> * League tables of document downloads (Do NOT publish or put on
> >> the Web league tables of academics by totals of downloads. This
> >> is counter-productive as the same few people are always at the
> >> top {sometimes because of extraneous discipline or popularity
> >> reasons}, and everyone else feels aggrieved). Document download
> >> info seems ok as it is anonymized and variable. See for example
> >> http://eprints.otago.ac.nz/es/index.php?action=show_detail_date;range=4w
> >>
> >> * Encouragement (or stronger) from a head of school or research
> >> coordinator - they need to be converted and they are
> >> intra-university competitive as well as being
> >> discipline-competitive.
> >> * Integration of the repository into school and university
> >> websites (eg instead of a list of publications on a web-page
> >> (always out of date) put a php/perl query on the repository for
> >> the particular author or authors (always up to date).
> >> Possibility needs promotion and education to web-page designers
> >> (may be academics).
> >> * Professional development workshops for PhD candidates to put
> >> their publications up (*Important: these are Trojan horses.
> >> Maybe you can get a mandate for them ahead of academics/faculty*)
> >> * Development of repository software to provide extra information
> >> to authors and possibly readers, such as citation counts.
> >> * Briefing meetings with heads of departments, deans and research
> >> directors. Keep it as routinized as possible: we are not trying
> >> to do something radical but to smooth something that should be a
> >> routine part of research activity.
> >> * When you have a mandated policy, act on selected
> >> departments/faculties in a sequential strategy. Do not attempt a
> >> scattergun approach. Again, it is routinization that you are after.
> >> * Some universities have introduced financial benefits for depositing.
> >> * Do not worry about metadata quality, nor bother authors about
> >> it. Authors are often as good as librarians, if not better. In
> >> any case the most popular discovery techniques are not dependent
> >> on metadata.
> >> * Provide a service for authors who are worried about copyright.
> >> It generally isn't important nor is the service onerous.
> >> * ... I am sure that there are more I have forgotten for the moment...
> >>
> >>*Getting back to the requirement (mandatory) policy.* I well
> >>understand that most universities do not yet have such a policy. I
> >>think I know exactly how many do. However, unless it is in your kitbag
> >>(like a field-marshal's baton) the university is wasting its money
> >>even having a 5-15% full repository. Striving to achieve such a policy
> >>is understandable and laudable, but it must be a continuous and strong
> >>push.
> >>
> >>However, expending money on author support policies without a mandate
> >>is like pushing a large rock up a hill. *It does not work and is
> >>demonstrated not to work.* Precisely because of what I wrote earlier:
> >>the vast majority of academics (85%+) are non-participants and will
> >>seize any excuse however spurious to avoid doing any extra work. They
> >>are incapable of being persuaded in the mass. Remember that I am a
> >>researcher, not a librarian. I know the mindset of researchers.
> >>
> >>So to summarize:
> >>
> >> * Try to get the mandate before the repository.
> >> * If you've got the repository before the mandate, make it
> >> crystal-clear to *everyone* (especially in higher management)
> >> that a mandate is in your sights and you are not going to let go
> >> of it until you get what you want and the forces of reaction are
> >> defeated. Use the word "luddite" if you have to.
> >> * Don't expend significant amounts of time and money on
> >> author-support until you've got the mandate. It is pretty much
> >> wasted anyway, like flushing dollar notes down the toilet.
> >> * After you've got the mandate, go for full-on author-support. It
> >> will speed up the transition which will take 1-3 years.
> >>
> >>Arthur
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Andrew Waller
> Serials Librarian
> Collections Services
> University of Calgary Library
>
> waller_at_ucalgary.ca
> (403) 220-8133 voice
> (403) 284-2109 fax
>
Received on Mon May 08 2006 - 11:52:46 BST