Stevan,
I am a little puzzled by your responses.
Are you seriously giving as a positive feature of self-archiving in
institutional repositories that it is relatively inefficient and relatively
confusing practice?
But in another posting today* you praised them, as their
finadbility was now fully equal to centralized repositories, and you
called the most successul of all the centralized archives "obsolescent."
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
*(I have added the other posting at the bottom )
----- Original Message -----
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to
Cancelled Subscriptions
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Sally Morris (Chief Executive) wrote:
>
> > As I hoped, a publisher has come up with some real figures about
> > the effect of going OA after a short embargo. See below from
> > PNAS (forwarded with Diane's permission).
>
> Dear Sally:
>
> Let's keep our eye on the ball: The question is and has always been:
> Is there any evidence that self-archiving (green) causes
> cancellations?
> Answer is still: No.
>
> The PNAS report below is about making the journal freely accessible
> (gold). That makes all of its contents, publisher's version, at the
> publisher's website, free for all (gold) (within a month).
>
> I, for one, have never doubted that *that* could cause
> cancellations. But
> anarchic author self-archiving, of each author's postprints, in each
> author's own IR, in uncertain proportions and at uncertain rates, are
> another story.
>
> (But if/when mandated self-archiving should ever prove to cause
> cancellationsafter all, publishing can and will adapt; research
> should certainly not renounce
> its impact in order to insure journals' current modus operandi
> against all risk
> from the new medium!)
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
>
> > I wonder whether there are other publishers on this list who have
> > statistics they could share?
>
> Let's hope that if they do, their stats will be to the point
> (green), rather than
> off-topic (gold)!
>
> Chrs, Stevan
>
> > Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> > Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
> > Website: www.alpsp.org
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sullenberger, Diane" <DSullenb_at_nas.edu>
> > To: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)" <sally.morris_at_alpsp.org>
> > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled
> > Subscriptions
> >
> > Hi Sally,
> >
> > In 2000, we were free after one month. We lost 11% of our paid
> > subscribers in 2001, higher than the industry average, and we
> > switched to 6 months in 2002. The move did not stem the loss in
> > subscribers but it was reduced to 9% in 2002. We do not have hard
> > data to show a causal effect of our one month policy, but the
> > correlation certainly motivated a change.
> >
> > Best,
> > Diane
==other posting by SH today:
----- Original Message -----
From: Muriel Foulonneau <muriel.foulonneau_at_CCSD.CNRS.FR>
Date: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:55 am
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Central versus institutional self-archiving
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Are there statistics supporting a current decrease in number of
> depositson ArXiv or CogPrints?
>
> Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> >> May I ask you when CogPrints was first created? What was its
> official launch date?
> >>
> >
> > CogPrints was launched August 19, 1997
> > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
> >
> > I might add that CogPrints (as well as Arxiv) are obsolescent as
> > primary loci for direct deposit: Since 1999 (the OAI
> interoperability> protocol) the distributed network consisting of
> authors' own OAI-compliant
> > Institutional Repositories (IRs) has become the natural and
> optimal locus
> > for direct deposit. Central Repositories (CRs) (like Arxiv and
> CogPrints) if they
> > perdure at all, will become harvesters from the primary research
> providers> (IRs), rather than the locus where papers are deposited
> directly. The
> > same applies to PubMed Central.
> >
> > Depositing directly in a CR is as silly today as depositing
> directly in
> > Google! Citeseer is a better model for an OA-age CR than Arxiv,
> because> it already is (and always has been) a harvester rather
> than a direct
> > locus for central deposit. OAIster is another example, and there
> are more.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
>
Received on Mon Dec 11 2006 - 21:46:55 GMT