Ukranian publisher and society collaborate with Connexions

Two new modules on the Connexions site were recently added by Ukraine-based Nauka Publishers and the Center for American Literary Studies in Ukraine at the Taras Shevchenko Institute of Literature of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. (Thanks to EIFL.) The courses:

Which publishers allow self-archiving the published PDF version?

Publisher version/PDF use in Institutional Repositories, press release, August 27, 2008.

… There is often a question about the use of the publishers own PDF version
of research articles and whether these can be archived. It is often believed
that all publishers prohibit the use of their own PDF: in fact the situation
is very different.

SHERPA has analysed its records to determine which of the 414 publishers
listed allow authors to deposit the publishers’ version or publishers’ PDF
of a journal article into the author’s institutional repository. 50 publishers
allow immediate, un-embargoed deposit into repositories — even more allow
use in restricted circumstances. This means that there is a large volume of
work which can be deposited directly into repositories even if the author
has not retained their own final draft. …

The results have been mounted on the RoMEO site

In total this shows that 69 out of the 414 publishers listed in RoMEO, allow
the use of the publishers’ final version of an article in an institutional
repository in some manner. These 69 publishers cover approximately 1334 journal
titles.

Update. See also Jason Baird Jackson’s comments on the American Anthropological Association’s policies.

On repositories and publishers’ copyright set statements

Jenny Delasalle has posted a summary of responses to her question on how repositories handle publisher requirements to include set statements with articles.

… The basic issue I asked about is what to do with copyright statements, whether to include them in cover sheets and/or metadata records for items. Should copyright statements be exactly as laid out by publishers and how [do] we make sure that we are aware of publishers’ precise wishes? …

[Different repositories take different approaches to the question …]

No-one has had any complaints from publishers about their approach. This is another issue that relates to the importance of a swift and robust take-down policy, should any such complaints be received. …

Evidence for the OA citation advantage, and inconclusive evidence against

Stevan Harnad, On Eggs and Citations, Open Access Archivangelism, August 19, 2008.  Excerpt:

Failing to observe a platypus laying eggs is not a demonstration that the platypus does not lay eggs….

Failing to observe a significant OA citation Advantage within a year of publication (or a year and a half — or longer, as the case may be) with randomized OA does not demonstrate that the many studies that do observe a significant OA citation Advantage with nonrandomized OA are simply reporting self-selection artifacts (i.e., selective provision of OA for the more highly citable articles)….

The many reports of the nonrandomized OA Citation Advantage are based on samples that were sufficiently large, and on a sufficiently long time-scale (almost never as short as a year) to detect a significant OA Citation Advantage.

A failure to observe a significant effect with small, early samples, on short time-scales — whether randomized or nonrandomized — is simple that: a failure to observe a significant effect: Keep testing till the size and duration of your sample of randomized and nonrandomized OA is big enough to test your self-selection hypothesis (i.e., comparable with the other studies that have detected the effect)….

DOAJ growing twice as fast as last year

Heather Morrison, DOAJ growth rate nearly doubles in the past year, Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, August 29, 2008.  Excerpt:

…This simple chart [PS: omitted here] illustrates the near doubling of the growth rate of the Directory of Open Access Journals from 2007 to 2008, from an average of more than 1.2 new title per calendar day, to an average of 2.2 new titles per calendar day.

As further illustration of the growth rate of DOAJ: as of today, DOAJ includes 3,587 journals , and has added 63 new titles in the last 30 days, more than 2 new titles per day (and it’s August!). Since September 30, 2007, DOAJ has grown from 2,846 titles, an increase of 741 titles in 11 months, or 330 days at 30 days/month, for an average net growth of 2.2 titles per day. In the September 30, 2007 Dramatic Growth of Open Access update, I noted a growth rate of 1.2 titles / day for DOAJ over the previous year….

Publicly-funded lobbying against OA for publicly-funded geodata

The UK Ordnance Survey, or government mapping agency, is using public funds to pay a lobbying firm to push back against mounting public pressure to make its publicly-funded data OA. 

For details, see two articles by Michael Cross in The Guardian (August 21 and August 28) and two blog posts by the Free Our Data campaign, in which Cross is a leader (one and two, both from August 28).

For background, see our (many) past posts on the Free Our Data campaign to free up the data gathered by the Ordnance Survey.

OA, serendipity, peer-review conservatism, and fostering discovery

Jean-Claude Bradley, Happy Accidents: A Must-Read for Open Scientists, Useful Chemistry, August 26, 2008.  Excerpt:

…The fact that some of us in the Open Science community are discussing [serendipity and peer-review conservatism] does not mean that we are advocating for the abolition of peer review or the NIH. We are not that naive. We still submit proposals and manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals (although given a choice we probably would pick an Open Access journal over one running on a paid subscription model).

The point is what we do in addition to all those traditional processes.

We can share our failed experiments. We can share our research plans. We can discuss science freely admitting what we don’t know. We can record our talks at closed meetings and make them public. We can initiate and participate in serious scientific conversations going on in the blogosphere without worrying about everyone’s title and rank.

Basically, we can collaborate in ways that are most conducive to serendipitous discoveries. The free social software, databases and other infrastructure now available make this information exchange easier than ever.

The key question for a researcher today: to hoard or not to hoard?

To me, it seems likely that data hoarders will find it more and more difficult to claim priority for a contribution when competing against loose associations of open collaborators motivated by insatiable curiosity.

Some of the folks from the funding side are getting it. Take a look at SubMeta.

DOAJ growth rate nearly doubles in the past year

This simple chart illustrates the near doubling of the growth rate of the Directory of Open Access Journals from 2007 to 2008, from an average of more than 1.2 new title per calendar day, to an average of 2.2 new titles per calendar day.

As further illustration of the growth rate of DOAJ: as of today, DOAJ includes 3,587 journals , and has added 63 new titles in the last 30 days, more than 2 new titles per day (and it’s August!). Since September 30, 2007, DOAJ has grown from 2,846 titles, an increase of 741 titles in 11 months, or 330 days at 30 days/month, for an average net growth of 2.2 titles per day. In the September 30, 2007 Dramatic Growth of Open Access update, I noted a growth rate of 1.2 titles / day for DOAJ over the previous year.

This post serves two purposes: as yet another illustration of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access, and as the starting point for an illustration of the use of Creative Commons. Watch Social Justice Librarian for the next step in the illustration.

Designing an open archive network for agricultural research

Imma Subirats and five co-authors, Towards an architecture for open archive networks in agricultural sciences and technology, Online Information Review, 32, 4 (2008) pp. 478-487.  Only this abstract is free online, at least so far:

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore addressing the accessibility, availability and interoperability issues of exchanging agricultural research output by means of the AGRIS application profile – an exchange metadata standard – and controlled vocabularies or subject-specific knowledge organisation systems.

Design/methodology/approach – Based on an analysis of the open access (OA) publishing model and the open archives initiative (OAI), the authors share their proposal for the architecture for open archive networks in agricultural sciences and technology.

Findings – The lack of adequate information exchange possibilities between researchers in food and agricultural sciences represents a significant weakness, limiting the research system to properly help address the issues of agricultural development. The OA publishing model promotes the availability of content online, including grey literature, which is not available through commercial distribution channels but which significantly contributes to agricultural research and development. The new architecture proposed in this paper is based on these OA and OAI paradigms and has three components: the creation of content with agreed content description standards, the harvesting of the content using common exchange standards and the value-added services provided to the users using the exchanged standard content.

Originality/value – The paper presents how the agricultural sciences and technology community can adopt the OA model and OAI tools. The paper will be useful to information professionals who are planning to improve the accessibility and interoperability of the agricultural research produced in their institution by the creation of institutional repositories.

A cultural heritage repository for Malaysia

Zuraidah Abd Manaf, Establishing the national digital cultural heritage repository in Malaysia, Library Review, 57, 7 (2008) pp. 537 – 548.    Only this abstract is free online, at least so far:

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to uncover the perceptions of information professionals with regards to the establishment of a National Digital Cultural Heritage Repository Center (NDCHR) in Malaysia.

Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts a modified Delphi study to identify the factors that contribute towards the establishment of an NDCHR in Malaysia. A three-round modified Delphi study was used in this study to obtain consensus among the experts with regards to the factors that contribute towards the establishment of the central repository.

Findings – The establishment of an NDCHR requires collaboration efforts among the different types of cultural institution in Malaysia. The aspiration of the establishment to improve accessibility, resource discovery, preservation and promotion of the nation’s cultural heritage information would contribute toward restructuring some common grounds and thinking among the different types of cultural institutions with respect to effective approaches to managing and organising the nation’s digital cultural heritage information.

Practical implications – Findings and discovery of the study are significant in providing a general framework to establish an NDCHR in Malaysia.

Originality/value – The outcome of the study will contribute toward the establishment of a central repository for digital cultural heritage information in Malaysia.

On Eggs and Citations

Failing to observe a platypus laying eggs is not a demonstration that the platypus does not lay eggs. You have to actually observe the provenance, ab ovo, of the little newborn platypusses, if you want to demonstrate that they are not engendered by egg-laying.

Failing to observe a significant OA citation Advantage after a year (or a year and a half — or longer, as the case may be) with randomized OA does not demonstrate that the many studies that do observe a significant OA citation Advantage with nonrandomized OA are simply reporting self-selection artifacts (i.e., selective provision of OA for the more highly citable articles.)

You first have to replicate the OA citation Advantage with nonrandomized OA (on the same or comparable sample) and then demonstrate that randomized OA (on the same or comparable sample) eliminates the OA citation Advantage (on the same or comparable sample).

Otherwise, you are simply comparing apples and oranges (or eggs and expectations, as the case may be) in reporting a failure to observe a significant OA citation Advantage in a one one-year (or 1.5 year) sample with randomized OA — along with a failure to observe a significant OA citation Advantage for nonrandomized OA for the same sample either (because the nonrandomized OA subsample was too small):

The many reports of the nonrandomized OA Citation Advantage are based on samples that were sufficiently large, and on a sufficiently long time-scale (almost never as short as a year) to detect a significant OA Citation Advantage.

A failure to observe a significant effect with small samples on short time-scales — whether randomized or nonrandomized — is simple that: a failure to observe a significant effect: Keep testing till the size and duration of your sample of randomized and nonrandomized OA is big enough to test your self-selection hypothesis (i.e., comparable with the other studies that have detected the effect).

Meanwhile, note that (as other studies have likewise reported), although a year is too short to observe a significant OA citation Advantage, it was long enough to observe a significant OA download Advantage — and other studies have also reported that early download advantages correlate significantly with later significant citation advantages.

Just as mating more is likely to lead to more progeny for platypusses (by whatever route) than mating less, so accessing and downloading more is likely to lead to more citations than accessing and downloading less.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

OA data repository for UK social science data

The UK Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) has launched UKDA-store, an OA repository for data in the social sciences.  (Thanks to DataShare.)  From the July 24 announcement:

The ESRC Research Methods Festival at Oxford was the venue, on 30 June 2008, for the launch of UKDA-store, a new self-archiving system for the storage and sharing of primary research data outputs in the social and behavioural sciences.

Research data and output sharing is an important part of publicly-funded research, and research funders are increasingly implementing formal data sharing polices, in line with high-level recommendations and policies made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and others. The ESRC was one of the first UK funding bodies to initiate a data sharing policy and fund an archive to house research data generated as a result of its funding….

UKDA-store is complementary to the formal preservation and dissemination system for data that are offered by the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS) via the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Data Policy. While the UKDA-store system can hold all kinds of digital objects from numeric and textual datasets to technical and research reports, it can also link virtually to outputs held in other repositories. UKDA-store will enable a greater number of research data outputs to be shared by investigators, in cases where ESDS may not have the resources to acquire and store these data, or where the data simply do not fit the ESDS collections development policy.

UKDA-store, developed with funding support from the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), uses a state of the art open source repository system based on FEDORA to allow contributors to manage their own data and research outputs. The benefit to users searching for a range of research outputs is that the system allows linking between research funding information, research outputs, publications and archived data sources.

Phase I is geared to ESRC researchers, who have submitted data resources at the end of their awards, where data are deemed to be more suited to a self-archiving repository system than formalised acquisition and preservation with ESDS….

Also see the UKDA-store FAQ and user guide.

Comments 

  • At the moment, UKDA-store is limited to work by ESRC-funded researchers.  Although the ESRC adopted an OA mandate for literature and data in June 2006, I can’t tell whether deposit in UKDA-store is mandatory for ESRC-funded researchers.
  • It appears that the "store" in UKDA-store refers to the JISC-funded StORe (Source-to-Output Repositories) project.  But this is a guess.