The original report to the client was peer reviewed.
The article based on the research is undergoing peer review as we speak.
You are welcome to suspend judgement until you see the article published (in
the meantime there's a summary report of the whole study, of which this was
part, at
http://www.bsf.ac.uk/journals/BSF_survey_report_July_2008_FINAL.pdf)
Sally
Sally Morris
Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: 20 January 2009 00:23
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit
Mandates
A meta question ~
If we can form conclusions based on research results reported in this
manner, does this mean that can we safely dispense with peer review
and formal publication?
For the avoidance of doubt: I do see the value of peer review and
formal publication. Before coming to any conclusions about this
research, I would want to see the methodology section.
Sally, could you post a preprint and let us know the status of this
article? Has it gone through peer review yet?
Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and
does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library
Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
On 19-Jan-09, at 3:49 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sally Morris (Morris Associates)
> <sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Sue Thorn and I will shortly be publishing a report of a research
> study on the attitudes and behaviour of 1368 members of UK-based
> learned societies in the life sciences.
>
> 72.5% said they never used self-archived articles when they had
> access to the published version;
>
> This makes sense. The self-archived versions are supplements, for
> those who don't have subscription access.
>
> 3% did so whenever possible,
> 10% sometimes and 14% rarely. When they did not have access to
> the published version, 53% still never accessed the self-archived
> version;
>
> This is an odd category: Wouldn't one have to know what percentage
> of those articles -- to which these respondents did not have
> subscription access -- in fact had self-archived versions at all?
> (The global baseline for spontaneous self-archiving is around 15%;
> see, for example http://elpub.scix.net/data/works/att/
> 178_elpub2008.content.pdf)
>
> The way it is stated above, it sounds as if the authors knew there
> was a self-archived version, but chose not to use it. I would
> strongly doubt that...
>
> 16% did so whenever possible,
>
> That 16% sounds awfully close to the baseline 15% where it *is*
> possible, because the self-archived supplement exists. In that
> case, the right description would be that 100% did so. (But I
> rather suspect the questions were again posed in such an ambiguous
> way that it is impossible to sort any of this out.)
>
> 16% sometimes and 15%
> rarely. However, 13% of references were not in fact to
> self-archiving repositories - they included Athens, Ovid, Science
> Direct and ISI Web of Science/Web of Knowledge.
>
> To get responses on self-archived content, you have to very
> carefully explain to your respondents what is and is not meant by
> self-archived content: Free online versions, not those you *or your
> institution* have to pay subscription tolls to access.
>
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue Jan 20 2009 - 11:35:46 GMT