[Apologies for cross-posting]
Andrew,
Thank you for your comments. To clarify, no, it is not 60% of the estimated refereed journal output of the OU that is deposited in full text format; a proportion is metadata-only items. Looking at my data over the last year, the split is around 56/44 (full text/metadata-only).
Picking up on your extra point, regarding the time invested to make an author version reflect fully the changes made after acceptance (i.e. during copyediting/proofreading), I personally do not feel this is necessary. As long as the version in the repository is identified properly (for example, on a coversheet, as we do here at the OU), the user will accept the fact that there may be minor differences between this, the accepted manuscript version, and the final version published in the journal. On rare occasions there may sometimes be relatively major changes made post-acceptance (e.g. a title change), in which case I would agree it is worth reflecting this in the accepted manuscript version, but on the whole most changes should be minor matters of English or house style, the absence of which do not disadvantage the paper being read and cited from the repository. I recognise there are many that would disagree, preferring to invest the time, but in my role as Repository Manager here at the OU I would not enco
urage it as an essential practice for academics wishing to deposit their work.
Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Tel: +44(0)1908 332971
Email: c.j.smith_at_open.ac.uk
Web:
http://oro.open.ac.uk
Blog:
http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ORO
Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/smithcolin
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew A. Adams [mailto:aaa_at_MEIJI.AC.JP]
Sent: 19 August 2010 01:57
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Incentives for encouraging staff to self-archive
Colin Smith (via Stevan Harnad):
> Open Research Online: A self-archiving success story.
> Smith, Colin; Yates, Christopher and Chudasama, Sheila (2010)
> The 5th International Conference on Open Repositories 6-9 July 2010, Madrid, Spain.
> http://oro.open.ac.uk/22321/
> In this poster, we use the example of Open Research Online - the research repository of theOpen University - to show that dedicated management and active development and advocacy of an institutional repository can lead to very successful results under the self-archiving model, in this case capturing regularly an estimated 60% of peer-reviewed journal output. Also demonstrated is the significant rise in full text (i.e. fully open access) items in the repository since the implementation of this approach."
I'm a little confused by the numbers in this paragraph. The separation of
"capturing regularly an estimated 60%" and "rise in full text items". I'm not
sure if Colin is on this list, but if not perhaps Stevan could put my
question to him. The OA (practice what you preach - well done :-) ) version
of the poster linked to above has a slightly different line:
"In the case of ORO, this has also resulted in
around 60% of peer-reviewed journal output being
regularly self-archived."
It would be nice to have it spelled out exactly what this deposit rate refers
to. Is it 60% of the estimated refereed journal output of the OU that is
deposited in full text format? From the way it has been put in the email and
the paper it's unclear whether it's the full text deposit that reaches 60%
(unmandated) or just meta-data deposit, with some proportion of those
meta-data deposits including full text.
From my own recent experience with a just-published paper, producing an
author version of the final copy-edited text can actually be a fair amount of
work, to reflect the final words (though not necessarily the formatting) of
the published version (and it is the words that matter, so getting the words
as published is quite important) and so although it might seem that if one is
depositing meta-data that it's just a single extra key-stroke to deposit the
full text, that's not always true if one wants to have the exact words as
published, and not just the pre-copy-edited version.
Message-ID: <dummy8307688708_at_invented.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
--
Professor Andrew A Adams aaa_at_meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
Received on Thu Aug 19 2010 - 12:25:31 BST