-
Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness
Authors:
A. Swan,
Y. Gargouri,
M. Hunt,
S. Harnad
Abstract:
The PASTEUR4OA project analyses what makes an Open Access (OA) policy effective. The total number of institutional or funder OA policies worldwide is now 663 (March 2015), over half of them mandatory. ROARMAP, the policy registry, has been rebuilt to record more policy detail and provide more extensive search functionality. Deposit rates were measured for articles in institutions' repositories and…
▽ More
The PASTEUR4OA project analyses what makes an Open Access (OA) policy effective. The total number of institutional or funder OA policies worldwide is now 663 (March 2015), over half of them mandatory. ROARMAP, the policy registry, has been rebuilt to record more policy detail and provide more extensive search functionality. Deposit rates were measured for articles in institutions' repositories and compared to the total number of WoS-indexed articles published from those institutions. Average deposit rate was over four times as high for institutions with a mandatory policy. Six positive correlations were found between deposit rates and (1) Must-Deposit; (2) Cannot-Waive-Deposit; (3) Deposit-Linked-to-Research-Evaluation; (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention; (5) Must-Make-Deposit-OA (after allowable embargo) and (6) Can-Waive-OA. For deposit latency, there is a positive correlation between earlier deposit and (7) Must-Deposit-Immediately as well as with (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention and with mandate age. There are not yet enough OA policies to test whether still further policy conditions would contribute to mandate effectiveness but the present findings already suggest that it would be useful for current and future OA policies to adopt the seven positive conditions so as to accelerate and maximise the growth of OA.
△ Less
Submitted 9 April, 2015;
originally announced April 2015.
-
Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score
Authors:
Philippe Vincent-Lamarre,
Jade Boivin,
Yassine Gargouri,
Vincent Lariviere,
Stevan Harnad
Abstract:
MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of Knowledge is deposited in e…
▽ More
MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of Knowledge is deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when. We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between MELIBEA score and deposit percentage. We also found that for three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or deposit latency (immediate deposit required, deposit required for performance evaluation, unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula for mandate effectiveness to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power doubled (.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but these findings already suggest that it would be useful for future mandates to adopt these three conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.
△ Less
Submitted 3 January, 2016; v1 submitted 10 October, 2014;
originally announced October 2014.
-
Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate Ineffectiveness
Authors:
Yassine Gargouri,
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras,
Tim Brody,
Les Carr,
Stevan Harnad
Abstract:
We have now tested the Finch Committee's Hypothesis that Green Open Access Mandates are ineffective in generating deposits in institutional repositories. With data from ROARMAP on institutional Green OA mandates and data from ROAR on institutional repositories, we show that deposit number and rate is significantly correlated with mandate strength (classified as 1-12): The stronger the mandate, the…
▽ More
We have now tested the Finch Committee's Hypothesis that Green Open Access Mandates are ineffective in generating deposits in institutional repositories. With data from ROARMAP on institutional Green OA mandates and data from ROAR on institutional repositories, we show that deposit number and rate is significantly correlated with mandate strength (classified as 1-12): The stronger the mandate, the more the deposits. The strongest mandates generate deposit rates of 70%+ within 2 years of adoption, compared to the un-mandated deposit rate of 20%. The effect is already detectable at the national level, where the UK, which has the largest proportion of Green OA mandates, has a national OA rate of 35%, compared to the global baseline of 25%. The conclusion is that, contrary to the Finch Hypothesis, Green Open Access Mandates do have a major effect, and the stronger the mandate, the stronger the effect (the Liege ID/OA mandate, linked to research performance evaluation, being the strongest mandate model). RCUK (as well as all universities, research institutions and research funders worldwide) would be well advised to adopt the strongest Green OA mandates and to integrate institutional and funder mandates.
△ Less
Submitted 2 November, 2012; v1 submitted 30 October, 2012;
originally announced October 2012.
-
Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by Discipline
Authors:
Yassine Gargouri,
Vincent Larivière,
Yves Gingras,
Les Carr,
Stevan Harnad
Abstract:
Most refereed journal articles today are published in subscription journals, accessible only to subscribing institutions, hence losing considerable research impact. Making articles freely accessible online ("Open Access," OA) maximizes their impact. Articles can be made OA in two ways: by self-archiving them on the web ("Green OA") or by publishing them in OA journals ("Gold OA"). We compared the…
▽ More
Most refereed journal articles today are published in subscription journals, accessible only to subscribing institutions, hence losing considerable research impact. Making articles freely accessible online ("Open Access," OA) maximizes their impact. Articles can be made OA in two ways: by self-archiving them on the web ("Green OA") or by publishing them in OA journals ("Gold OA"). We compared the percent and growth rate of Green and Gold OA for 14 disciplines in two random samples of 1300 articles per discipline out of the 12,500 journals indexed by Thomson-Reuters-ISI using a robot that trawled the web for OA full-texts. We sampled in 2009 and 2011 for publication year ranges 1998-2006 and 2005-2010, respectively. Green OA (21.4%) exceeds Gold OA (2.4%) in proportion and growth rate in all but the biomedical disciplines, probably because it can be provided for all journals articles and does not require paying extra Gold OA publication fees. The spontaneous overall OA growth rate is still very slow (about 1% per year). If institutions make Green OA self-archiving mandatory, however, it triples percent Green OA as well as accelerating its growth rate.
△ Less
Submitted 16 June, 2012;
originally announced June 2012.
-
Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research
Authors:
Yassine Gargouri,
Chawki Hajjem,
Vincent Lariviere,
Yves Gingras,
Les Carr,
Tim Brody,
Stevan Harnad
Abstract:
Articles whose authors make them Open Access (OA) by self-archiving them online are cited significantly more than articles accessible only to subscribers. Some have suggested that this "OA Advantage" may not be causal but just a self-selection bias, because authors preferentially make higher-quality articles OA. To test this we compared self-selective self-archiving with mandatory self-archiving…
▽ More
Articles whose authors make them Open Access (OA) by self-archiving them online are cited significantly more than articles accessible only to subscribers. Some have suggested that this "OA Advantage" may not be causal but just a self-selection bias, because authors preferentially make higher-quality articles OA. To test this we compared self-selective self-archiving with mandatory self-archiving for a sample of 27,197 articles published 2002-2006 in 1,984 journals. The OA Advantage proved just as high for both. Logistic regression showed that the advantage is independent of other correlates of citations (article age; journal impact factor; number of co-authors, references or pages; field; article type; or country) and greatest for the most highly cited articles. The OA Advantage is real, independent and causal, but skewed. Its size is indeed correlated with quality, just as citations themselves are (the top 20% of articles receive about 80% of all citations). The advantage is greater for the more citeable articles, not because of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but because of a quality advantage, from users self-selecting what to use and cite, freed by OA from the constraints of selective accessibility to subscribers only.
△ Less
Submitted 9 January, 2010; v1 submitted 3 January, 2010;
originally announced January 2010.
-
Hierarchies in Dictionary Definition Space
Authors:
Olivier Picard,
Alexandre Blondin-Masse,
Stevan Harnad,
Odile Marcotte,
Guillaume Chicoisne,
Yassine Gargouri
Abstract:
A dictionary defines words in terms of other words. Definitions can tell you the meanings of words you don't know, but only if you know the meanings of the defining words. How many words do you need to know (and which ones) in order to be able to learn all the rest from definitions? We reduced dictionaries to their "grounding kernels" (GKs), about 10% of the dictionary, from which all the other…
▽ More
A dictionary defines words in terms of other words. Definitions can tell you the meanings of words you don't know, but only if you know the meanings of the defining words. How many words do you need to know (and which ones) in order to be able to learn all the rest from definitions? We reduced dictionaries to their "grounding kernels" (GKs), about 10% of the dictionary, from which all the other words could be defined. The GK words turned out to have psycholinguistic correlates: they were learned at an earlier age and more concrete than the rest of the dictionary. But one can compress still more: the GK turns out to have internal structure, with a strongly connected "kernel core" (KC) and a surrounding layer, from which a hierarchy of definitional distances can be derived, all the way out to the periphery of the full dictionary. These definitional distances, too, are correlated with psycholinguistic variables (age of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, oral and written frequency) and hence perhaps with the "mental lexicon" in each of our heads.
△ Less
Submitted 30 November, 2009;
originally announced November 2009.
-
How Is Meaning Grounded in Dictionary Definitions?
Authors:
A. Blondin Masse,
G. Chicoisne,
Y. Gargouri,
S. Harnad,
O. Picard,
O. Marcotte
Abstract:
Meaning cannot be based on dictionary definitions all the way down: at some point the circularity of definitions must be broken in some way, by grounding the meanings of certain words in sensorimotor categories learned from experience or shaped by evolution. This is the "symbol grounding problem." We introduce the concept of a reachable set -- a larger vocabulary whose meanings can be learned fr…
▽ More
Meaning cannot be based on dictionary definitions all the way down: at some point the circularity of definitions must be broken in some way, by grounding the meanings of certain words in sensorimotor categories learned from experience or shaped by evolution. This is the "symbol grounding problem." We introduce the concept of a reachable set -- a larger vocabulary whose meanings can be learned from a smaller vocabulary through definition alone, as long as the meanings of the smaller vocabulary are themselves already grounded. We provide simple algorithms to compute reachable sets for any given dictionary.
△ Less
Submitted 14 July, 2008; v1 submitted 23 June, 2008;
originally announced June 2008.
