On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Armel Le Bail wrote:
> I am more interested in the percentage of documents published
> in these 94% green journals which appear also in repositories...
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
> How many? 5%? Less?
The spontaneous self-archiving rate varies from field to field, varying from
< 5% to >25%, with the median about 15%.
http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/
http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm
But why on earth would one be more interested in the percentage of papers that
are self-archived *spontaneously* rather than in the percentage that are
self-archived when there is a self-archiving mandate (> 90%)?
> Concerning a repository of supplementary materials (crystal
> structures atomic coordinates), I can tell you : less than 0.001%
> are voluntarily deposited inside of the COD (Crystallography
> Open Database) by crystallographers since 3 years... The
> same crystallographers deposit "voluntarily" their data inside
> of a commercial database (CSD = Cambridge Structural
> Database) for closely 50% of them. Why ? Because the
> journals recommend to do so. Since years, this has
> become a kind of tradition. We (at COD) asked to journals
> that they add in their recommendations to authors to send
> their supplementary materials not only to the CSD but also
> to the COD. We failed... The only chance now is that
> employers of public researchers officially recommend to
> do so.
But you have answered your own question! And it is the same answer as
for journal articles: It is the researchers' own employing institutions
and funders who need to mandate the self-archiving of all research
papers published by their researchers, in the institution's own IR;
and it is likewise they who need to "recommend" that their employees and
fundees do likewise with their data (and with their preprint drafts too,
where appropriate).
> I am a CNRS researcher in France still waiting for
> such a clear recommendation...
> So, what are we doing wrong in your opinion ?
Vide supra...
Stevan Harnad
Prior AmSci Topic Threads on CNRS Policy:
"Are things otherwise in France?" (May 1999)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0268.html
"France's CNRS Registers Commitment to Implement Berlin Declaration
Self-Archiving Policy Recommendation" (Mar 2005)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4447
"Guide juridique CNRS" (Nov 2005)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4950.html
"Helene Bosc et le progres en acces libre en france" (Mar 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5244
"CNRS position on OA : new details" (Jun 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5422
"Forthcoming OA Developments in France" (Jun 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5434
> >(1) 94% of journals are green.
> > http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
> >
> >(2) For papers in the remaining 6%, their full-text and metadata can be
> >immediately deposited in the IR anyway, but with access to the full-text
> >set to Closed Access instead of Open Access. The EPrints semi-automatic
> >"email eprint" button allows the author to email to individual
> >eprint-requesters with one keystroke.
> > https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/notices/publicnotices.php?notice=902
> >
> >(3) Yes, research institutions and research funders can and should (and
> >will) mandate the self-archiving of 100% of their published paper output.
> > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
> > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
> >
> >Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Aug 21 2006 - 12:05:52 BST