RE: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Sue Thorn and I will shortly be publishing a report of a research 
study on the attitudes and behaviour of 1368 members of UK-based 
learned societies in the life sciences.

72.5% said they never used self-archived articles when they had 
access to the published version;  3% did so whenever possible, 
10% sometimes and 14% rarely.  When they did not have access to 
the published version, 53% still never accessed the self-archived 
version;  16% did so whenever possible, 16% sometimes and 15% 
rarely.  However, 13% of references were not in fact to 
self-archiving repositories - they included Athens, Ovid, Science 
Direct and ISI Web of Science/Web of Knowledge.

Sally Morris
Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Phil Davis
Sent: 16 January 2009 00:22
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit
Mandates

Regarding Joe Esposito's question about whether digital archives 
can siphon usage from the publisher, we reported on such a find 
with 4 math journals in which some articles were deposited in the 
arXiv.

see:

Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher
downloads for mathematics articles? Philip M. Davis, Michael J.
Fromerth; Scientometrics Vol. 71, No. 2. p.203-215 (May, 2007)

and to illustrate "the Google effect", here is a link to a free
copy of the final manuscript:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0603/0603056.pdf

--Phil Davis


Joseph J. Esposito asked:
> 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.