Seb,

the correct term for the "Number of documents" line should be "Number of
OAI PMH metadata records", but outside the information professional
world nobody will understand this I suppose. BASE is harvesting OAI
metadata only.

You are adressing a very important question: what is the ratio of OAI
metadata and Open Access full texts?

Of course there are repositories, which provide 100% open access, but on
the other hand we see that repositories are becoming more and more
platforms for exposing the whole publication output of an institution.
So it would be great, if repository managers would use setSPEC
information about open access to documents more often (there are enough
guidelines from DARE, DINI, DRIVER, OpenAire, ...).

We are trying to indicate real open access to documents within BASE
soon, but I fear that we can indicate this information only for a small
portion of the metadata.

Best
Dirk


Am 30.10.2012 10:45, schrieb Seb Schmoller:

Dirk,
In the chart does the "Number of documents" line represent "full text
records" or "full text records and metadata only records", and if the
latter is there easily extractable data for each? (Apologies if these
terms are not strictly accurate.)
Seb Schmoller

On 30/10/2012 08:14, Dirk Pieper wrote:

Hi,

BASE has currently indexed 2.356 repositories, which is more than
OpenDoar but less than ROAR have listed.

This page shows the growth since 2004:

http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2

Because we administer the BASE repository list every week when updating
the index, we can assure, that there are not so many skeletons in the
BASE index.

Best
Dirk


Am 30.10.2012 07:54, schrieb Richard Poynder:

Thanks for this Heather.

I think your figures come from OpenDoar
(http://www.opendoar.org/index.html), which currently appears to list 2,217
repositories. Meanwhile ROAR (http://roar.eprints.org/) lists 2,993.

With regard specifically to BMC's Open Repository service, OpenDoar lists 20
repositories that use the service (0.9% of the market), whereas ROAR lists
18 (0.6%).

BMC itself lists 22 organisations that use its Open Repository services
(http://www.openrepository.com/customers).

Richard Poynder



-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Heather Morrison
Sent: 29 October 2012 21:48
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select
Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

Open Repository is just one repository service.

The numbers for total growth of open repositories in total are much more
relevant. Since 2006, the numbers of open repositories around the world have
increased from just over 800 to over 2,200 (nearly tripling in numbers), as
illustrated in this growth chart in the most recent Dramatic Growth of Open
Access:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/thank-you-open-access-movement.ht
ml

The repository numbers per se are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Some of the repositories up and running in 2004 were in early pilot phases.
It takes time to get such a service up and running, develop and find support
for an institutional open access policy, educate faculty and students about
this new service, and fill the repository. In the past 8 years or so, we
have gone from a point where a very few institutions had early repositories
to a point where I would argue that an IR is a "must-have" to be taken
seriously as a research institution.

The situation in British Columbia (where I work) very much reflects this. In
2004, only the largest institutions either had pilot IRs or IRs in the
planning stages. Today, there are a number of very actively promoted IRs.
Currently, what we are discussing at BC Electronic Library Network is a
collaborative approach to ensure that all BC post-secondaries have access to
this important service.

best,

Heather Morrison
pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/

On 2012-10-29, at 12:53 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:

Richard,

The best person to ask about Open Repository would be Matt Cockerill,

director at BMC.

I think you use the right term when you say that publishers 'allow'

self-archiving. Too often I see that interpreted as 'endorse', but that is a
very different thing in my view (and theirs, too, I guess).

Jan

On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:40, Richard Poynder wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Jan.

I wonder if anyone from BMC could update the list on how popular the Open

Repository service has proved, whether users are currently growing or
decreasing, and how many users there are at the moment etc.?

By the way, this is what BMC founder Vitek Tracz said to me in December

2004
(http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html).

RP: One further complication that could perhaps retard progress is that

the OA movement has forked, with advocates disagreeing over the best way
forward. While OA publishers like you advocate OA publishing (the so-called
"Gold Road" to OA) supporters of the "Green Road" like Stevan Harnad argue
that it is sufficient for authors to continue publishing in traditional
subscription-based journals, but to then self-archive their papers. Does
Harnad have a point?

VT: I do not think so. Self-archiving is of course very desirable, but

the issue is quite simple: publishers are not really going to allow authors
to self-archive in an easy way, and authors are not going to do it unless it
is completely painless.

RP: I'm told that around 93% of journals currently do allow

self-archiving?

VT: They say they allow it, but publishers have merely created the

pretence of allowing it. They don't really. They say they allow
self-archiving, but authors can't just take their published papers and
archive them: they have to use their original manuscript, without any of the
corrections and changes made by the publisher. They have to mark it up
themselves, and they cannot use the illustrations created or amended by the
publisher. In practice it is really quite difficult to reproduce the
published paper.

If self-archiving were so easy why isn't it happening? Because in

practice self-archiving is impractical. That said, for those who want it
BioMed Central supports self-archiving by offering to help institutions
create repositories for their researchers' papers.

Richard Poynder


From: goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] On

Behalf Of Jan Velterop

Sent: 29 October 2012 11:07
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select

Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our offering

was launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out was more
like a happy coincidence.

Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as a

result of the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually offering
concrete assistance to repositories some time *after* we realised the
importance of repositories' role? Well, in our case the realisation came
quite some time before we offered the service. These things take
preparation, you know. Extraordinary, isn't it?

You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance of

repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda Statement on
Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC.

The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we did try

to convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC
journals. Calling that "Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred journals
in favour of Gold OA journals" is spin. Were I to use similar spin, I could
say something like "the Green OA advocates are lobbying for authors to be
mandated to deposit their manuscripts in repositories, and be forced to
accept sub-optimal OA, with access delays, technical and usage limitations,
and problematic financing of publishing via subscriptions."

But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate.

Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great.
Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their collections
as well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold' is not antithetical
to repositories. I don't think it is good, though, to be satisfied with
sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency.

Jan

On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:



On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:



Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals

was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for
at the time

Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What

we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still
advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access
publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised
that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open
access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories,
and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com

I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its

repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry?

http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913