Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Professor Harnad's comments prompt this question (see his point 
#1 after you follow the link).

I have heard anecdotally that usage of electronic resources has 
in some instances begun to tail off even for long-established 
online publications. Has anyone seen any evidence of this?

Someone speculated to me that the availability of articles in IRs 
is resulting in readers going to the IR version instead of the 
subscription version, even when the reader has access to the 
subscribed version (the cost of which is invisible to the 
end-user). This was characterized to me as "a Google effect," 
that is, someone does a search on Google and clicks on the IR 
link rather than going to the library's subscription.

I would appreciate learning if there is any evidence of this.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:14 PM
Subject: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates

> Two members of STM have kindly, at my request, allowed me to see a
> copy of the STM Briefing on IRs and Deposit Mandates. I focused the
> commentary below on quoted excerpts, but before posting it I asked
> STM CEO Michael Mabe for permission to include the quotes. As I do
> not yet have an answer, I am posting the commentary with paraphrases
> of the passages I had hoped to quote. If I receive permission from
> Michael, I will re-post this with the verbatim quotes. As it stands,
> it is self-contained and self-explanatory.
>
> Full hyperlinked version of the posting:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/507-guid.html
>
> The International Association of Scientific, Technical and
> Medical Publishers (STM) has circulated a fairly anodyne briefing
> to its member publishers. Although it contains a few familiar
> items of misinformation that need to be corrected (yet again),
> there is nothing alarming or subversive in it, along the lines of
> the PRISM/pit-bull misadventure of 2007.
>
> Below are some quote/comments along with the (gentle) corrections
> of the persistent bits of misinformation: My responses are
> unavoidably -- almost ritually -- repetitive, because the errors
> and misinformation themselves are so repetitive.
>
> STM BRIEFING DOCUMENT (FOR PUBLISHING EXECUTIVES) ON
> INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES AND MANDATED DEPOSIT POLICIES
>
> [MOD. Note:  See URL above for the full text]