Jan Velterop gives some valid advice to repository designers and
managers: (1) make sure the DEPOSIT link is prominent on institutional
repository home pages, and make sure the link works; (2) make sure the
URL of the repository is known to depositors; (3) make sure the
repository policy (if any) is known to depositors; and (4) use
effective measures to promote self-archiving (not just reasoning and
evidence).
There are, however, still a few points of misunderstanding, centered
mostly on the issue of mandated versus spontaneous (unmandated)
self-archiving and mandated versus unmandated institutional
repositories:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Velterop <velterop_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I have self-archived (even in Papyrus, taking far more than 6 minutes, though some of that may have been caused by a slow internet connection)
The vast majority of institutional repository (IR) self-archiving is
done locally, where internet connection speed is not a retardant.
> my point: repositories focus in their presentation too much on search and retrieval, and not anywhere near enough on intake of articles.
You are quite right about repositories in general (e.g., the total
population of 1859 repositories registered in ROAR).
http://roar.eprints.org/
But the only way to determine whether this imbalance in focus plays a
significant causal role in the low level of spontaneous (unmandated)
self-archiving (5-25%) is to test it. Is there any evidence that
unmandated self-archiving rates are higher for IRs that emphasize
deposit more (or whose deposit link is more prominent -- and working)?
And is there any evidence for the c. 120 mandated IRs registered in
ROARMAP that those with a less prominent deposit button have a lower
deposit rate?
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
For on the face of it, the real, known difference in deposit rate --
and it is a substantial one (5-25% vs. 60-100%) is between mandated
and unmandated IRs, not between IRs that have more or less prominent
deposit links.
And it is mandated self-archiving that we are discussing here, as the
remedy for researchers' passivity.
(This is not to say that Jan's welcome advice to put more emphasis on
an IR's deposit function is not valid and worth heeding!)
> When talking to researchers I find that many (most of the ones I talk to) do not know the URL of the repository of their institution, and trying to find it on their institution's library site they find that it's often – fortunately not always – well hidden (if present at all).
This too is valid advice, but again, does it make a difference to
researcher passivity for nonmandated self-archiving? And how true is
it that the researchers at the 120 mandating institutions don't know
their IR's URL?
(I am not saying it isn't true of some! In fact, I know of at least
two institutions that have adopted a formal self-archiving mandate but
not realized that they must systematically inform their researchers of
it! This is easily remedied, though -- far more easily than getting
the mandate adopted in the first place.)
> Mandates are not a stick? Mandates aren't worth the paper they are written on... if they are not mandating, imperative. What are they then? A gentle suggestion?
Mandates are indeed imperative: requirements rather than just requests
or recommendations. But a "stick" refers to penalties, punishments,
sanctions. There is no punishment for noncompliance with a
self-archiving mandate, just as there is no punishment for
noncompliance with a publish-or-perish mandate. But when it comes time
for performance review, or research assessment, or grant application
evaluation, the lack of publications or the lack of impact of the
publications will mean the lack of rewards (carrots) in the form or
promotion, tenure, salary, and research funding.
Not even the mandate model I recommend as optimal -- the Liege model,
which officially makes IR deposit the sole means of submission of
publications for performance review -- is a "stick." It is merely a
new administrative procedure, one of many, adopted for and adapted to
the online era.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/737-guid.html
So: mandatory, yes; imperative, yes; but stick? No. Perhaps a bit of
procedural red tape at most. Yet rewards are certainly contingent on
compliance, in more ways than one.
> Were I to have the time I could show many library and repository sites (all mentioned in ROAR) that simply do not – certainly not obviously – point to a submission link.
Point taken, and valid. (It might be interesting to compare the
ROARMAP subset of 96 full-institutional mandates with a matched
control subset of ROAR, to see whether the mandated IRs are any better
sign-posted than the unmandated ones. But we already know their
deposit rates are substantially higher.)
> Even if they consult their own library page, they struggle to find their repository.
Ditto.
> Mandates without proper infrastructure are useless. Arguing for mandates should include arguing for adequate infrastructural provisions.
This is good advice (even if overstated). What would amount to good
enough infrastucture, over and above a prominent deposit link that
works, and works fast?
> So you think it's easy to find the institutions' self-archiving policy pages? Have you ever tried? Have you ever checked how many researchers actually know about their repositories and where to find them?
ROARMAP indexes them all, and contains the statement of the gist of
the mandate, as well as a link to the institutional policy page (if it
exists, and in most cases it does).
Most IRs in ROAR, in contrast, have no policy pages, because they have
no policies!
>> SH: "for years now my target has been institutional and funding agency policy-makers, to persuade them to adopt mandates. I gave up on trying to persuade passive authors with reason and evidence a decade ago; that's why I turned to mandates!"
>
> That is then the essential difference with 'gold' OA. You appeal to institutions, officialdom, and 'gold' OA appeals to scientists.
I couldn't quite follow that. But if you think that appealing to
scientists is generating a higher OA rate (whether Gold OA publishing
or Green OA self-archiving) than mandates from their institutions and
funders, I am afraid you are very, very far from the truth, Jan!
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/mandVsNmand.png
http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/bjorkdata.png
> if you want to garner support for a behavioural change. Mindsets are involved in behavioural change. Emotions. Not just rebuttal and counter-evidence. There is a whole host of research available on that topic.
I know. But a well-implemented mandate seems to be the remedy for all
that. (Of course, one must win over institutions and funders to
mandating, but fortunately, there are far fewer individuals to
persuade there than all the scholars and scientists we would otherwise
have needed to persuade one by one...)
> Of course you are 'selling'! You are 'selling' OA. (Or in your case, the need for OA mandates). I don't think I would ever convince you of that, but hopefully the readers of this forum will be.
Jan, think for a second. I am speaking literally: I am not selling a
thing. It is subscription publishers and Gold OA publishers who are
selling something. Green OA advocates are merely trying to persuade
researchers, their institutions and their funders to do something that
will help themselves. We are not selling them anything. Nor are we
making or seeking to make any money out of this.
> ...pointless if mandates are in effect not 'sticks', if they are not imperative, but no more than options, or even just suggestions.
Same thing with "sticks": Sticks presumably mean penalties,
punishments for noncompliance. And "carrots" presumably mean rewards
for compliance. Well, self-archiving mandates do not entail
punishments for noncompliance, just the absence of rewards (enhanced
impact).
And, as I said, even when designated the sole means of submission for
performance evaluation, it is rewards for compliance that are at
stake, not punishments for noncompliance.
> the essential difference with 'gold' OA. You appeal to institutions, officialdom, and 'gold' OA appeals to scientists.
Zie Boven.
> Stevan, what I mean to say is this: a mechanistic, legalistic, technocratic, strictly logical, rational approach to OA will take forever to achieve it if not enough attention is paid to outreach, to empathy with researchers, to 'hand-holding' ('mandate' is derived from Latin 'giving a hand' after all), to persuading researchers to change their behaviour.
Two decades of persuasion and hand-holding have generated a steady
5-25% deposit rate; mandates triple that, and approach 100% within a
few years (faster if well implemented).
You favour -- or used to favour, when you were a publisher --
persuading institutions to buy Gold OA ("memberships" and "open
choice"); the resultant OA growth rate is not very encouraging. I
favour persuading institutions to mandate Green OA, for all their
research output, cost-
http://bit.ly/GreenVsGold
http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/gargreengold2.png
> You may not see that as being in your purview on this forum, but perhaps you could enlist someone to act as co-moderator and bring these things into the forum's ambit.
As I have said many times, my own postings are on a par with anyone
else's postings on this forum. I am only wearing my moderator's hat
when I approve postings, and I approve virtually all postings, as I
think you know. Yes, the focus of the Forum has been concentrated on
practical OA policies of institutions, the universal providers for
content, but that does not exclude outreach, empathy, persuasion and
hand-holding strategy discussion.
In other words, I wonder what you really mean by a "mechanistic,
legalistic, technocratic, strictly logical, rational approach to OA"
(you omit also "empirical") -- and especially what you mean by way of
an alternative (apart from trying to sell more Gold OA!).
Best wishes,
Stevan
Received on Sun Sep 19 2010 - 15:37:00 BST
