Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Velterop <velterop_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Is anyone on this list aware of credible research that shows how many
articles (in the last 5 years, say), outside physics and the Arxiv
preprint servers, have been made available with OA exclusively via
'green' archiving in respositories, and how many were made available
with OA directly ('gold') by the publishers (author-side paid or not)?
The 'gold' OA ones may of course also be available in repositories, but
shouldn't be counted for this purpose, as their OA status is not due to
them being 'green' OA.
The percentage of total annual journal article output that is Green OA
has been hovering at about 15% for the past half decade at least. Here
are figures for Green OA only, for a Thomson/Reuters ISI sample of
21,000 control articles. Articles in Gold OA journals were excluded
from the count:
http://bit.ly/MandVSNonMand
I'm not sure I understand how this graph supports the assertion that the
proportion of 'green', but non-'gold' OA articles hovers around 15%. Did you
mean to refer to another graph perhaps? What is the source of, or reference for,
this graph? Has the graph been published and peer reviewed (or vice versa)?
Source: Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody,
T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open
Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLOS ONE
(under review)
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18493/
Interesting abstract, but it doesn't seem to indicate that reading the full
article will inform my question. Anyway, good to see that you chose to publish
in a 'gold' OA journal! An example to be followed.
Bo-Christer Björk's sample of 1282 Thompson/Reuters ISI articles, he
found much the same percentage Green (14%) but he also had an estimate
of Gold (6.6%). (Since ISI does not index all journals, Björk also
made an estimate for a total sample of 1837 ISI + nonISI journals, and
there the relative percentage for Gold was 8.5% and Green was 11.9%)
Source: Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, et al.
2010 Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009.
PLOS ONE 5(6): e11273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 [Table 3]
Maybe these figures can be reworked to show the proportions of 'gold' on the one
hand, and 'green'-but-not-'gold'-and-not-Arxiv on the other, but on the face of
it, that information is not comntained in the article. It's gratifying to see
that this is also a 'gold' OA article, though.
It is my hunch (to be verified or falsified) that
publishers (the 'gold' road) have actually done more to bring OA about
than repositories, even where mandated (the 'green' road).
I would say that the data above pretty definitively falsify your hunch...
I'm afraid that the "definitely"in your assertion is somewhat premature.
(The 160 institutional and funder mandates so far have not made a
detectable dent in the c. 15% figure, though this may soon change.)
(Do you imagine, though, Jan, that the way most authors are complying
with their institution's or funder's mandate to make make their
articles OA is by publishing them in a Gold OA journal, rather than
publishing them in whatever journal they judge appropriate, and then
depositing the final draft in their OA IR, as the mandates state?)
Maybe, maybe not. But it is good to see that the articles you reference are
indeed 'gold' OA.
Stevan Harnad
Received on Wed Aug 25 2010 - 22:28:55 BST