[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates
- From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:19:06 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 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; This makes sense. The self-archived versions are supplements, for those who don't have subscription access. > 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; This is an odd category: Wouldn't one have to know what percentage of those articles -- to which these respondents did not have subscription access -- in fact had self-archived versions at all? (The global baseline for spontaneous self-archiving is around 15%; see, for example http://elpub.scix.net/data/works/att/178_elpub2008.content.pdf) The way it is stated above, it sounds as if the authors knew there was a self-archived version, but chose not to use it. I would strongly doubt that... > 16% did so whenever possible, That 16% sounds awfully close to the baseline 15% where it *is* possible, because the self-archived supplement exists. In that case, the right description would be that 100% did so. (But I rather suspect the questions were again posed in such an ambiguous way that it is impossible to sort any of this out.) > 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. To get responses on self-archived content, you have to very carefully explain to your respondents what is and is not meant by self-archived content: Free online versions, not those you *or your institution* have to pay subscription tolls to access. Stevan Harnad
- Prev by Date: LibGuides license agreement
- Next by Date: Seeking advice from publishers
- Previous by thread: Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates
- Next by thread: Re: STM Publisher Briefing on Institution Repository Deposit Mandates
- Index(es):