Re: The numbers - Re: [BOAI] Success of U Liege Mandate Linked to Performance Assessment

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:31:45 -0400

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
      I have counted for the well known Journal Nature ("This is a RoMEO
      yellow publisher") the ORBI deposits since publication date 2002:


(1) Nature is a "pale-green" publisher, meaning they do not endorse Immediate-OA
but request an embargo of 6 months.

 (2) Having counted U. Liege deposits of Nature articles since 2002, Dr. Graf
should now count how many Nature articles U Liege authors actually published
since 2002, by year. That will not only show ORBi's annual deposit ratio,
full-text and Immediate-OA rate, by year, for its Nature articles, but it will
give an estimate of its overall deposit ratio (for articles in pale-Green
journals)...

      R = Request copy (no full text = NO OPEN ACCESS forever or author's
      dead + 70 years whichever comes first)


Or 6 months (which is the end of the Nature OA embargo...)
 
      F = Full text

      PP/R-AP/F = 2 files, one publisher postprint with Request button,
      one
      author postprint full-text
      2010 R
      2009 F
      2008 2 R, 1 PP/R-AP/F
      2007 2 R
      2005 6 R
      2004 2 R, 1 F
      2003 1 R, 1 F, 1 PP/R-AP/F
      2002 3 R

      Summa summarum: 22 "Nature" articles, only 5 full-text. This is in
      no
      way a success for OA. The Liege "mandate" is worthless.


Worthless to whom? 

To the would-be users of those 5 Immediate-OA full-texts plus 17 Almost-OA
full-texts (for 6 months, then OA after 6 months) who would otherwise have no
access at all if their institutions had no subscription to Nature?

Or worthless to Dr. Graf (who seems to want more than U Liege's IDOA mandate
provides, without giving any practical indication of exactly how to get it)?

      Because authors tend to deposit publisher's PDFs with request button
      (which is, as I have shown several times, evil) instead of the
      preprint or (in the Nature case after an embargo of 6 months)
      postprint the request button is against OA.


Presumably it is Dr, Graf, then, who, unlike those who have adopted the IDOA
mandate, is for OA rather than against it. The readers of the American Scientist
Open Access Forum -- a forum devoted to implementing concrete, practical
strategies for reaching 100% Immediate-OA rather than to just pointing out how
evil anything is that is short of 100% Immediate-OA -- will be very interested
to hear Dr. Graf's practical alternative strategy, the one that delivers at
least as much OA and Almost-OA as the IDOA mandate+Button, and without the
"evil."

[With some misgivings, I approved Dr. Graf's earlier posting referring to
"liar," and now this one referring to "evil," but I remind Dr. Graf that the
patience of this Forum's readership for his habitual rudeness is wearing mighty
thin by now, and temperateness would be advisable if he wishes to have further
postings approved.]


Stevan Harnad
Received on Wed Jun 02 2010 - 18:32:24 BST