Término del ambito de Acceso Abierto a la literatura científica que implica depositar una copia de un documento digital en una repositorio institucional o disciplinar con el fin de ofrecer libre acceso al misma y  aumentar al máximo su accesibilidad, uso e impacto


     1.    Anuradha, K. T.,  "Design and development of institutional repositories: A case study".  The International Information & Library Review, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2005, pp. 169-178. http://zlf.fane.cn/science/article/B6WGP-4H68T8B-1/2/7a396c76a9a95d60990517ed638e7299

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Acceso abierto/Diseño/Planificación/Autoarchivo

Resumen: Summary Institutional repositories (IR) are digital collections that capture, collect, manage, disseminate, and preserve scholarly work created by the constituent members in individual institutions. They are born out of problems with the current scholarly communication model developed by commercial publishers and vendors. The establishment of IR in the developing countries ensures that their national research becomes mainstream and contributes on an equal footing to the global knowledge pool. This paper presents the results of an effort to develop an IR of publications of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India. Since self-archiving is extremely sporadic, this repository is compiled from several identified, authentic sources by extracting metadata by constructing a suitable search strategy. The extracted metadata are standardized and duplicate publications are removed. The database is updated periodically and publications can be added and edited through the add publication module. The search module allows users to search by specific publication type. Links to full text are given wherever possible. The repository, named ôPRABHAVIö, is web-enabled using Greenstone Digital Library software and can be accessed at: http://vidya-mapak.ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/cgi-bin/library


     2.    Bailey, C. W. Jr.,  "What Is Open Access?".  Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, No. 2, 2006. http://www.digital-scholarship.com/cwb/WhatIsOA.pdf

Descriptores: Recursos electrónicos/Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: Conventional fee-based publishing models fragment worldwide scholarly journal literature into numerous digital enclaves protected by various security systems that limit access to licensed users. What would global scholarship be like if its journal literature were freely available to all, regardless of whether the researcher worked at Harvard or a small liberal arts college, or he/she was in the United States or Zambia? What would it be like if, rather than being entangled in restrictive licenses that limited its use, journal literature was under a license that permitted any use as long as certain common-sense conditions were met? This is the promise of open access (OA). Needless to say, there are many challenges in involved in trying to achieve this bold vision, and it is not embraced, or even viewed as being feasible, by all parties in the scholarly communication system. Without question, open access has significant implications for libraries, especially academic libraries. For electronic resources librarians, 'open access' raises a variety of questions. What is OA? Is it different from free access, or is it the same? What is a Creative Commons License, which some OA providers use? What's an 'e-print'? Are there different types of e-prints? What is 'self-archiving'? What are the different ways that e-prints are made publicly available? What's an open access journal? Are there different types of OA journals? How can OA journals be made available at no cost? How do you search for OA materials? Why is OA desirable? Will OA flourish or fail? How will OA affect library collections and services? What can libraries do to support OA and to integrate OA materials into their collections? How will OA affect library budgets, especially collection budgets? How will OA affect electronic resources librarians' jobs?


     3.    Bevan, S. J.,  "Developing an institutional repository: Cranfield QUEprints – a case study".  OCLC Systems & Services, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2007. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750710748478

Descriptores: Archivos abiertos/Repositorios institucionales/Bibliotecas universitarias/Planificación

Resumen: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the Institutional Repository at Cranfield University – Cranfield QUEprints ( http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk). Design/methodology/approach – The paper describes the methodologies involved in acquiring research output, and covers advocacy strategies, policies, and also provides data on cost and usage. Findings – The Cranfield QUEprints is a managed repository where the archiving is undertaken by library staff. This has proved to be a successful method of acquiring research outputs and increasing content. Selected methods of persuading academics to contribute to the IR, including personal contact, and marketing information, have also proved successful. Research limitations/implications – That the report is specific to an institution, but provides experiences that will be generally applicable. Originality/value – The paper provides reassurance that, when it comes to populating an institutional repository, an alternative method to self-archiving can be successful and cost-effective. It is hoped that the descriptions provided in the paper will provide encouragement to institutions currently without an IR that there are no insurmountable barriers to the development of such a system.


     4.    Bosc, H. and Harnad, S.,  "In a paperless world a new role for academic libraries: Providing Open Access. Learned Publishing . (In Press)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10502/1/boscharnadLP.htm

Descriptores: Bibliotecas universitarias/Acceso abierto

Resumen: Academic libraries should be considered research tools, co-evolving with technology. The Internet has changed the way science is communicated and hence also the role of libraries. It has made it possible for researchers to provide Open Access (OA) (i.e., toll-free, full-text, on-line access, web-wide) to their peer reviewed journal articles in two different ways: (1) by publishing in them in OA journals and (2) by publishing them in non-OA journals but also self-archiving them in their institutional OA Archives. Librarians are researchers’ best allies in both of these OA provision strategies. Some of the best examples of these pioneering libraries are described in this article. From them we conclude that an official mandate for OA provision is necessary to accelerate the growth of OA – and thereby the growth of research usage and impact -- worldwide.


     5.    Bosc, H. and Harnad, S.,  "In a paperless world a new role for academic libraries: Providing Open Access".  Cogprints, 2005, pp. 95-99. http://cogprints.org/4200/

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Bibliotecas digitales/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: Academic libraries should be considered research tools, co-evolving with technology. The Internet has changed the way science is communicated and hence also the role of libraries. It has made it possible for researchers to provide Open Access (OA) (i.e., toll-free, full-text, on-line access, web-wide) to their peer reviewed journal articles in two different ways: (1) by publishing in them in OA journals and (2) by publishing them in non-OA journals but also self-archiving them in their institutional OA Archives. Librarians are researchers? best allies in both of these OA provision strategies. Some of the best examples of these pioneering libraries are described in this article. From them we conclude that an official mandate for OA provision is necessary to accelerate the growth of OA ? and thereby the growth of research usage and impact -- worldwide.


     6.    Brody, T.,  "Citation Analysis in the Open Access World. Interactive Media International . (In Press)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2004. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/1/tim_oa.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/Análisis de citas

Resumen: Recent reports by the UK Parliament Committee on Science and Technology and the US House Appropriations Committee have recommended mandating that researchers provide Open Access (OA) to their research articles by self-archiving them free for all on the Web. OA is now firmly on the agenda for funding agencies, universities, libraries and publishers. What is needed now is objective, quantitative evidence of the benefits of OA to research authors, their institutions, their funders and to research itself. Web-based analysis of usage and citation patterns is providing this evidence.


     7.    Brody, T.,  "Evaluating Research Impact through Open Access to Scholarly Communication.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13313/1/brody.pdf

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Comunicación científica/Libre acceso/Impacto/Investigación/Evaluación

Resumen: Scientific research is a competitive business – in order to secure funding, promotion and tenure researchers must demonstrate their work has impact in their field. To maximise impact researchers undertake high priority research, aim to get results first, and publish in the highest impact journals. The Internet now presents a new opportunity to the scholarly author seeking higher impact: s/he can now make their work instantly accessible on the Web through author self-archiving. This growing body of open access literature (coupled with new publishing models that make journals available for-free to the reader) maximises research impact by maximising the number of people who can read it, and making it available sooner. Open access also provides a new opportunity for bibliometric research. This thesis describes the relatively recent phenomenon of open access to research literature, tools that were built to collect and analyse that literature, and the results of analyses of the effect of open access and its effect on author behaviour. It
shows that articles self-archived by authors receive between 50-250% more citations, that rapid pre-printing on the Web has dramatically reduced the peak citation rate from over a year to virtually instant and how citation-impact – now widely used for evaluation – can be expanded to include a new web metric of download impact.


     8.    Brody, T. C. L. G. Y. H. C. H. S. and Swan, A.,  "Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14418/1/ctwatch.html

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Acceso abierto/Bibliometría/Impacto

Resumen: he research production cycle has three components: the conduct of the research itself (R), the data (D), and the peer-reviewed publication (P) of the findings. Open Access (OA) means free online access to the publications (P-OA), but OA can also be extended to the data (D-OA). The two hurdles for D-OA are that not all researchers want to make their data OA and that the online infrastructure for D-OA still needs additional functionality. In contrast, all researchers, without exception, do want to make their publications P-OA, and the online infrastructure for publication-archiving (a worldwide interoperable network of OAI-compliant Institutional Repositories [IRs]) already has all the requisite functionality for this. Yet because so far only about 15% of researchers are spontaneously self-archiving their publications today, their funders and institutions are beginning to mandate OA self-archiving in order to maximize the usage and impact of their research output. The adoption of these P-OA self-archiving mandates needs to be accelerated. Researchers’ careers and funding already depend on the impact (usage and citation) of their research. It has now been repeatedly demonstrated that making publications OA by self-archiving them in an OA IR dramatically enhances their research impact. Research metrics (e.g., download and citation counts) are increasingly being used to estimate and reward research impact, notably in the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). But those metrics first need to be tested against human panel-based rankings in order to validate their predictive power.


     9.    Carr, L. and Harnad, S.,  "Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-Archiving. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/1/KeystrokeCosting-publicdraft1.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Aspecto económico/Economía de la información/Impacto

Resumen: A common objection to self-archiving is that it is an extra task that puts an unnecessary burden on each researcher. In particular, the need to enter the extra bibliographic metadata demanded by repositories for accurate searching and identification is presumed to be a particularly onerous task. This paper describes a preliminary study on two months of submissions for a mature repository and concludes that the amount of time spent entering metadata would be as little as 40 minutes per year for a highly active researcher.


   10.    Carr, L. D. D. H. S. H. J. H. T. H. S. and Oppenheim, C.,  "Written Evidence to 2003 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2004. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13105/1/399we151.htm

Descriptores: Derechos de autor/Acceso abierto/Creative Commons

Resumen: The UK should maximise the benefits to the British tax-payer from the research it funds by mandating not only (as it does now) that all findings should be published, but also that open access to them should be provided, for all potential users, through either of the two available means: (1) publishing them in open-access journals (whenever suitable ones exists) (5%) and (2) publishing the rest (95%) in toll-access journals whilst also self-archiving them publicly on their own university's website. (1) Open access (worldwide) to UK research output maximises the impact (ie, visibility, usage, application, citation) of UK research output, enhancing the productivity and progress of UK (and worldwide) research, thereby maximising the return on the UK tax-payer's support for research. (2) The unified open-access provision strategy supported by the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Berlin Declaration, and other such current movements involves two complementary strategies OAJ and OAA: (OAJ) Researchers publish their research in an open-access journal if a suitable one exists, otherwise (OAA) they publish it in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it in their own research institution's open-access research archive. So why is the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into scientific publications considering only open access journals (OAJ), rather than also considering, at least as seriously, mandating university-based provision of open access to their own (peer-reviewed, published) research output (OAA)? (3) It would be a great mistake (and the press release already suggests some risk of making it) if open-access provision were to be mistakenly identified only, or even primarily, with OAJ (open access journal publishing). There are still far too few open-access journals, whereas OAA self-archiving has the power to provide immediate open access for all the rest of UK research output. The UK government can do a great deal to maximise the access to and the impact of UK research output through government research funding policies and through HEFCE influence over academic institutional policy through research assessment and funding, in particular, by extending existing publish-or-perish policy to mandate open-access provision. (4) What parliament should mandate is accordingly open-access provision for all funded research.


   11.    Carr, L. H. S. and Swan, A.,  "A Longitudinal Study of the Practice of Self-Archiving. Working Paper . (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13906/1/Longitudinal.doc

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Acceso abierto

Resumen: This paper examines the practice of self-archiving and how it has changed over a period of almost two years in the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton


   12.    Carr, L. S. A. S. A. O. C. B. T. H. S. H. C. a. H. S.,  "Repositories for Institutional Open Access: Mandated Deposit Policies. (Submitted)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13099/2/abs77.pdf

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo/Autoarchivo

Resumen:  Only 15% of articles are currently being made Open Access (OA) through spontaneous self-archiving efforts by their authors. They average 25%-250% more citations in all 12 disciplines tested so far. Ninety-four percent of journals endorse immediate OA self-archiving. There is no evidence that self-archiving induces subscription cancellations. The “OA advantage” consists of: Early Advantage (early self-archiving produces both earlier and more citations), Usage Advantage (more downloads for OA articles, correlated with later citations), Competitive Advantage (relative citation advantage of OA over non-OA articles: disappears at 100% OA), Quality Advantage (OA advantage is higher, the higher the quality of the article) and Quality Bias (authors selectively self-archiving their higher quality articles – a non-causal component: disappears at 100% OA). We are currently comparing the OA advantage for mandated and spontaneous (self-selected) self-archiving. Deposit rates in Institutional Repositories (IRs) remain at 15% if unmandated, but climb toward 100% OA if mandated, confirming surveys that predicted 95% compliance. In the UK, 4 of the 8 research funding councils and the Wellcome Trust mandate self-archiving and it is being considered by the European Commission and the US federal FRPAA. There is no reason for universities to wait for the passage of the legislation. Five universities and two research institutions (including CERN) have already mandated it, with documented success. An Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access Mandate covers all cases and moots all legal issues: metadata are immediately visible webwide and, where needed, access to the postprint can be set as Closed Access instead of OA throughout any embargo period. Software to support this approach (that allows the author to email individual copies of non-Open Access papers to individual requesters) has been created for both EPrints and DSpace repository platforms.


   13.    EPrints,  "Institutional Self-Archiving Policy Commitment".  EPrints, 2006. http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php

Descriptores: Open Archives Initiative/Archivos abiertos/Autoarchivo/Repositorios institucionales

Resumen: The purpose of ROARMAP is to record the open-access policies of those institutions who are putting the principle of Open Access (as expressed by the Budapest Open Access Initiative and the Berlin Declaration) into practice as recommended by Berlin 3 (as well as the UK Government Science and Technology Committee). Universities and research institutions who officially commit themselves to implementing a systematic policy of open-access provision for their own peer-reviewed research output are invited to describe their policy in ROARMAP.


   14.    EPrints,  "OA Self-Archiving Policy: CERN: European Organization for Nuclear Research".  EPrints, 2006. http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=CERN%3A%20European%20Organization%20for%20Nuclear%20Research

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Open Archives Initiative/Archivos abiertos/Autoarchivo/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: CERN: European Organization for Nuclear Research (EUROPE*
institutional-mandate). Institution's/Department's OA Self-Archiving Policy The recommendation from the Berlin 3 meeting, held in Southampton in March 2005, on how the Berlin Declaration should be put in place is fully inline with the CERN policy that was actually presented at the same meeting: '(1) implement a policy to require their researchers to deposit a copy of all their published articles in an open access repository and (2) encourage their researchers to publish their research articles in open access journals where a suitable journal exists and provide the support to enable that to happen.' Point 1 has been the official position of CERN since November 2003 (Annex 1). Point 2 is the official position of CERN as of March 2005 (Annex 2). The full policy is described in the document: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?sc=1&ln=en&p=cern-open-2005-006&f=reportnumber


   15.    EPrints,  "OA Self-Archiving Policy: University of Southampton Department of Electronics and Computer Science".  EPrints, 2006. http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=University%20of%20Southampton%20Department%20of%20Electronics%20and%20Computer%20Science

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Open Archives Initiative/Archivos abiertos/Autoarchivo/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: University of Southampton Department of Electronics and Computer Science (UNITED KINGDOM*
institutional-mandate).


   16.    EPrints,  "Self-Archiving FAQ".  EPrints, 2007. http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Acceso abierto/Archivos abiertos/Derechos de autor/Autoarchivo

Resumen: Frequency ask questions on Open Access. What is self-archiving? What is the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)?  What is OAI-compliance? What is an Eprint Archive? How can I or my institution create an Eprint Archive? How can an institution facilitate the filling of its Eprint Archives? What is the purpose of self-archiving? What is the difference between distributed and central self-archiving? What is the difference between institutional and central Eprint Archives? Who should self-archive? What is an Eprint? Why should one self-archive? What should be self-archived? Is self-archiving publication? What about copyright?


   17.    Gadd, E.,  "The Intellectual Property Rights Issues Facing Self-archiving Key Findings of the RoMEO Project  ".  D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 9, 2003. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september03/gadd/09gadd.html

Descriptores: OAI-PMH/Autoarchivo/Propiedad intelectual/Derechos de autor/Open Archives Initiative/Harvesting metadata

Resumen: Inspired by the Open Archives Initiative, the United Kingdom (UK) Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) established the FAIR (Focus on Access to Institutional Repositories) programme in 2002. One of the programme's objectives was to 'explore the challenges associated with disclosure and sharing [of content], including IPR and the role of institutional repositories'. To this end, the JISC funded a one-year project called RoMEO (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). RoMEO, which took place between 2002–2003, specifically looked at the self-archiving of academic research papers, and the subsequent disclosure and harvesting of metadata about those papers using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) by OAI Data and Service Providers [Open Archives Initiative, 2002a].


   18.    Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., and Probets, S.,  "The Intellectual Property Rights Issues Facing Self-archiving Key Findings of the RoMEO Project  ".  D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 9, 2003. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september03/gadd/09gadd.html

Descriptores: OAI-PMH/Autoarchivo/Propiedad intelectual/Internet/Documentos electrónicos/Open Archives Initiative/Harvesting metadata

Resumen: Inspired by the Open Archives Initiative, the United Kingdom (UK) Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) established the FAIR (Focus on Access to Institutional Repositories) programme in 2002. One of the programme's objectives was to 'explore the challenges associated with disclosure and sharing [of content], including IPR and the role of institutional repositories'. To this end, the JISC funded a one-year project called RoMEO (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). RoMEO, which took place between 2002–2003, specifically looked at the self-archiving of academic research papers, and the subsequent disclosure and harvesting of metadata about those papers using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) by OAI Data and Service Providers.


   19.    Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., and Probets, S.,  "RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving ".  Journal of Documentation  , Vol. 59 , No. 3, 2003. http://angelina.emeraldinsight.com/vl=8753123/cl=40/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00220418/v59n3/s1/p243

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Propiedad intelectual/Impacto/Bibliotecas universitarias/Autores/Acceso abierto

Resumen: This is the first of a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving) which investigated the IPR issues relating to academic author self-archiving of research papers. It considers the claims for copyright ownership in research papers by universities, academics, and publishers by drawing on the literature, a survey of 542 academic authors and an analysis of 80 journal publisher copyright transfer agreements. The paper concludes that self-archiving is not best supported by copyright transfer to publishers. It recommends that universities assert their interest in copyright ownership in the long term, that academics retain rights in the short term, and that publishers consider new ways of protecting the value they add through journal publishing.


   20.    Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., and Probets, S.,  "RoMEO Studies 2: How Academics Want to Protect their Open-Access Research Papers ".  Journal of information science, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2003. http://lysander.ingentaselect.com/vl=1530808/cl=65/nw=1/rpsv/ij/sage/01655515/v29n5/s2/p333

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Open Archives Initiative

Resumen: This paper is the second in a series of studies (see E. Gadd, C. Oppenheim and S. Probets. RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving, Journal of Documentation 59(3) (2003) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licences. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. The paper concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal licence agreements.


   21.    Guedon, J.-C.,  "The "Green" and "Gold" Roads to Open Access: The Case for Mixing and Matching".  Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2004, pp. 315-328 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W63-4DS9WC0-2/2/3030f75c26987f4e18212f39fd7b0263

Descriptores: Acceso abierto

Resumen: Recent discussions on Open Access (OA) have tended to treat OA journals and self-archiving as two distinct routes. Some supporters of self-archiving even suggest that it alone can bring about full Open Access to the world's scientific literature. In this paper, it is argued that each route actually corresponds to a phase in the movement toward Open Access; that the mere fact of self-archiving is not enough; that providing some branding ability to the repositories is needed. However, doing so will eventually bring about the creation of overlay (or database) journals. The two roads, therefore, will merge to create a mature OA landscape.


   22.    Hajjem, C. and Harnad, S.,  "Citation Advantage For OA Self-Archiving Is Independent of Journal Impact Factor, Article Age, and Number of Co-Authors. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13329/2/eysen.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Acceso abierto/Impacto/Impacto/Análisis de citas

Resumen: Eysenbach has suggested that the OA (Green) self-archiving advantage might just be an artifact of potential uncontrolled confounding factors such as article age (older articles may be both more cited and more likely to be self-archived), number of authors (articles with more authors might be more cited and more self-archived), subject matter (the subjects that are cited more, self-archive more), country (same thing), number of authors, citation counts of authors, etc. Chawki Hajjem (doctoral candidate, UQaM) had already shown that the OA advantage was present in all cases when articles were analysed separately by age, subject matter or country. He has now done a multiple regression analysis jointly testing (1) article age, (2) journal impact factor, (3) number of authors, and (4) OA self-archiving as separate factors for 442,750 articles in 576 (biomedical) journals across 11 years, and has shown that each of the four factors contributes an independent, statistically significant increment to the citation counts. The OA-self-archiving advantage remains a robust, independent factor. Having successfully responded to his challenge, we now challenge Eysenbach to demonstrate -- by testing a sufficiently broad and representative sample of journals at all levels of the journal quality, visibility and prestige hierarchy -- that his finding of a citation advantage for Gold OA (articles published OA on the high-profile website of the only journal he tested (PNAS) over Green OA articles in the same journal (self-archived on the author's website) was not just an artifact of having tested only one very high-profile journal.


   23.    Hajjem, C. and Harnad, S.,  "The Open Access Citation Advantage: Quality Advantage Or Quality Bias? (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13328/2/moed.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Acceso abierto/Impacto/Impacto/Análisis de citas

Resumen: Many studies have now reported the positive correlation between Open Access (OA) self-archiving and citation counts ("OA Advantage," OAA). But does this OAA occur because (QB) authors are more likely to self-selectively self-archive articles that are more likely to be cited (self-selection "Quality Bias": QB)? or because (QA) articles that are self-archived are more likely to be cited ("Quality Advantage": QA)? The probable answer is both. Three studies [by (i) Kurtz and co-workers in astrophysics, (ii) Moed in condensed matter physics, and (iii) Davis & Fromerth in mathematics] had reported the OAA to be due to QB [plus Early Advantage, EA, from self-archiving the preprint before publication, in (i) and (ii)] rather than QA. These three fields, however, (1) have less of a postprint access problem than most other fields and (i) and (ii) also happen to be among the minority of fields that (2) make heavy use of prepublication preprints. Chawki Hajjem has now analyzed preliminary evidence based on over 100,000 articles from multiple fields, comparing self-selected self-archiving with mandated self-archiving to estimate the contributions of QB and QA to the OAA. Both factors contribute, and the contribution of QA is greater.


   24.    Hajjem, C. and Harnad, S.,  " The Self-Archiving Impact Advantage: Quality Advantage or Quality Bias? (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13193/1/kurtz-moed.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Acceso abierto

Resumen: In astrophysics, Kurtz found that articles that were self-archived by their authors in Arxiv were downloaded and cited twice as much as those that were not. He traced this enhanced citation impact to two factors: (1) Early Access (EA): The self-archived preprint was accessible earlier than the publisher's version (which is accessible to all research-active astrophysicists as soon as it is published, thanks to Kurtz's ADS system). (Hajjem, however, found that in other fields, which self-archive only published postprints and do have accessibility/affordability problems with the publisher's version, self-archived articles still have enhanced citation impact.) Kurtz's second factor was: (2) Quality Bias (QB), a selective tendency for higher quality articles to be preferentially self-archived by their authors, as inferred from the fact that the proportion of self-archived articles turns out to be higher among the more highly cited articles. (The very same finding is of course equally interpretable as (3) Quality Advantage (QA), a tendency for higher quality articles to benefit more than lower quality articles from being self-archived.) In condensed-matter physics, Moed has confirmed that the impact advantage occurs early (within 1-3 years of publication). After article-age is adjusted to reflect the date of deposit rather than the date of publication, the enhanced impact of self-archived articles is again interpretable as QB, with articles by more highly cited authors (based only on their non-archived articles) tending to be self-archived more. (But since the citation counts for authors and for their articles are correlated, one would expect much the same outcome from QA too.) The only way to test QA vs. QB is to compare the impact of self-selected self-archiving with mandated self-archiving (and no self-archiving). (The outcome is likely to be that both QA and QB contribute, along with EA, to the impact advantage.)


   25.    Hajjem, C. G. Y. B. T. C. L. and Harnad, S.,  "Open Access to Research Increases Citation Impact. (Submitted)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11687/1/chawki2.doc

Descriptores: Impacto/Investigación/Acceso abierto

Resumen: We analyzed the effect of providing 'Open Access' (OA; free online access to research articles) on their 'citation impact' (how often they are cited). Using a subset of the ISI CD-ROM database from 1992 - 2003, we compared, within each journal and year, articles to which their authors had (OA) or had not (NOA) provided open access by self-archiving them on the web. The number of OA and NOA articles and their respective citation counts were calculated within biology, business, psychology and sociology journals. The percentage of OA articles varied from 5-20% (mean and median, 12%). The citation counts (OA-NOA/NOA) showed a consistent OA advantage (mean 96%, median 73%) for all four fields and 28 subspecialties tested, varying from 25% to over 250%. An OA impact advantage has already been reported in the physical sciences and engineering (physics, computer science), but there was uncertainty about whether the same thing happens in other disciplines. Our data now show that both the biological and the social sciences show the OA advantage, and are hence likewise losing substantial amounts of potential impact for the 80-95% of their articles that are not yet self-archived. These results confirm that a mandatory self-archiving policy on the part of research institutions and funders would greatly enhance the impact of research results in all disciplines.


   26.    Harnad, J.,  "Clarifying Open Access: its implications for the research community (Letter)".  Cogprints, 2007. http://cogprints.org/5448/

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo/Investigación

Resumen: A critique of the CERN proposal to convert particle physics journals from the user-institution-pays subscription model to an author-institution-pays model for the sake of Open Access (OA). OA can be achieved via author-institution self-archiving ("Green OA"); it does not require converting journals to OA publishing ("Gold OA"), which is likely to cost some researchers more at this time.


   27.    Harnad, S.,  "The Budapest Open Access Initiative Self-Archiving FAQ".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2004. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10635/1/index.html

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)/Autoarchivo

Resumen:  The Self-Archiving FAQ of the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Answers prima facie questions about self-archiving.


   28.    Harnad, S.,  "Central versus institutional self-archiving. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13025/1/archcent.html

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Autoarchivo/PubMed Central/Medicina

Resumen:  NIH's, PLoS's, the Wellcome Trust's and now the UK MRC's unreflective support for PubMed Central (PMC), a Central Repository (CR), as the locus for direct self-archiving by authors is very unfortunate for Institutional Repositories (IRs), for self-archiving, and for Open Access (OA) progress in general. Alma Swan has published key papers on both OA self-archiving policy and institutional versus central self-archiving (IRs vs. CRs) analysing the reasons.
(a) Institutional self-archiving and central self-archiving are at odds in the quest for a universal self-archiving policy solution that will cover all OA research output. (b) It would be awkward and inefficient to have a different external cross-institution CR as the locus of primary deposit for every funding area, subject area, combination of subject areas, or nation. (c) Researchers' own IRs are the most natural and efficient way to scale up to covering all of OA space from all disciplines, institutions and nations. (d) Direct central self-archiving is already obsolete in the OAI era of interoperable OAI-compliant IRs. (e) The optimal solution is for researchers to self-archive their own papers in their own OAI-compliant IRs and for CRs to be harvested from those distributed IRs. (f) Universities are in the best position to mandate self-archiving and monitor and reward compliance. (g) Mandating self-archiving in CRs instead simply creates an unsystematic and incoherent policy that does not scale up to covering all research output from all research  Institutions. (h) What the NIH, Wellcome Trust and MRC should be mandating is not direct depositing in PMC, but universal depositing in the fundee's own IR, from which PMC can then harvest collections.


   29.    Harnad, S.,  "Critique of ALPSP'S 1st Response to RCUK's Open Access Self-Archiving Proposal. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11132/1/rcuk1.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: The Research Councils of the UK (RCUK) propose to require that the authors of all journal articles resulting from RCUK-funded research must make them openly accessible by self-archiving them on the web in order maximise their usage and impact. ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers) claim that this will have a negative effect on journals, but they provide no evidence to support their claim. All existing evidence from 15 years of self-archiving is actually to the contrary: Journal publication coexists peacefully with author self-archiving, even when it reaches 100%, with both researchers and their journals benefitting from the resulting enhanced research usage and impact


   30.    Harnad, S.,  "Generic Rationale for University Open Access Self-Archiving Policy. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12078/1/genericSApolicy-linked.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Mandato de autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: here are 24,000 peer-reviewed journals worldwide, publishing 2.5 million articles per year. No university can afford all or most of the journals its researchers may need. Hence all articles are losing some of their research impact (usage and citations). Recent findings show that articles whose authors supplement subscription-based access by self-archiving their own final drafts free for all on the web are downloaded and cited twice as much across all 12 disciplines analysed so far. Citation counts are robust indicators of research performance; self-archived articles have a substantial competitive. Only 15% of the 2.5 million articles published annually are being spontaneously self-archived worldwide today. Creating an Institutional Repository (IR) and encouraging staff to self-archive is a good first step, but the only institutions that are reliably approaching a 100% annual self-archiving rate today are those that not only create an IR and provide library help for depositing, but also adopt a self-archiving policy requirement or mandate. There is no need for any penalties for non-compliance. Two international, cross-disciplinary JISC surveys have found that 95% of authors will comply.The four institutions worldwide that have adopted a self-archiving mandate to date have confirmed this. 93% of journals have already endorsed author self-archiving; only 7% of journals have not.  What needs to be mandated: (1) immediately upon acceptance for publication (2) deposit in the Institution’s OA Repository (3) the author’s final accepted draft (not the publisher’s proprietary PDF) (4) both its full-text and its bibliographic metadata (author, date, title, journal, etc.) (Note that only the depositing itself needs to be mandated. Setting the access privileges to the full-text can be left up to the author, with Open Access strongly encouraged, but not mandated.) Self-archiving is effortless, taking only a few minutes and a few keystrokes; library help is available too (but hardly necessary). The mandate need have no penalties or sanctions in order to be successful; it need only be formally adopted, with the support of Heads of Schools, the library, and computing services. The rest will take care of itself naturally of its own accord, as the experience of Southampton ECS, Minho, QUT and CERN has already demonstrated


   31.    Harnad, S.,  "The Green and Gold Roads to Maximizing Journal Article Access, Usage and Impact. Haworth Press (occasional column), July 1 . ".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11093/1/haworth2.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Análisis de citas/Impacto

Resumen: The "green" road to maximizing research access is for each author to deposit a supplementary "Open Access" (OA) copy of their own articles online in their own institutional repository for any would-be user webwide whose institution cannot afford to subscribe to the journal in which that particular article was published. There is a second road to Open Access too, one that has not yet been fully tested, and hence still holds some uncertainties and risks for publishers: the "golden" road of Open Access (OA) Journal Publishing. Whereas the golden road of OA publishing may prove to be the road of the future for journal publishing, the road to maximizing journal article access, usage and impact right now is the green road of OA self-archiving.


   32.    Harnad, S.,  "How to Counter All Opposition to the US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Self-Archiving Mandate. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12702/1/frpaa.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Mandato de autoarchivo/Archivos abiertos

Resumen: Eight-point strategy for countering the publishing lobby's opposition to the US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Self-Archiving Mandate: (1) empirical evidence of the positive effect of self-archiving on research impact; (2) absence of empirical evidence of negative effect of self-archiving on publisher subscription revenues; (3) mandate deposit of full text and metadata immediately upon acceptance for publication and allow delay only for access-setting to the full text(Open Access vs. Closed Access); (4) 94% of journals already endorse immediate access-setting to OA; a semi-automatic email-eprint request feature of the archiving software can tide over any embargo period for the remaining 6%; (5) abstain from speculating or counterspeculating about subscription declines until/unless there is any evidence for them; (6) the mandate itself is the empirical test of whether there will be any effect on subscriptions; the outcome can be reviewed annually; (7) the primary purpose of Open Access is to provide access to researchers who are would-be users but cannot afford access, in order to maximise the benefits of the research to the public that funds it; public access to the research articles themselves is only a secondary benefit, for the minority of research articles that the general public might actually be interested in reading; (8) all evidence indicates that voluntary self-archiving policies fail, whereas mandatory ones are successful.


   33.    Harnad, S.,  "A Keystroke Koan for our Open Access Times. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11125/1/arch.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: Why do researchers petition for Open Access (OA) yet fail to provide it for themselves, by self-archiving? An employer/funder self-archiving mandate is what is missing to resolve this koan. What needs to be mandated is only the keystrokes for depositing the final draft plus the OAI metadata of the article in the author's Institutional Repository (IR) immediately upon acceptance for publication, along with the strong encouragement to set access-privileges as OA. Access to over 90% of these articles can already be set as OA with the blessing of their publishers. The rest can be set to IR-internal access for the time being, but their metadata will still be as visible to all searchers and surfers webwide as those of the 90% that are already OA, allowing would-be users to email the author to request an eprint. Emailing eprints can bridge the gap until either the remaining 10% of journals give self-archiving their blessing or the author tires of doing the superfluous keystrokes to email the eprints and simply does the last keystroke to set access at OA. Either way, mediated OA will already be providing effective 100% OA as of the implementation of the keystroke-policy.


   34.    Harnad, S.,  "Making the case for web-based self-archiving. Research Money, 19 (16).".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11534/1/researchmoney.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: Canada is not yet maximising the return on its public investment in research. Canadian research councils spend 1.5 billion dollars annually. Canada produces at least 50,000 research journal articles per year, but if it is worth funding and doing at all, research must be not only published, but used, applied and built upon by other researchers (‘citation impact’). The online-age practice of self-archiving has been shown to increase citation impact by a dramatic 50-250%, but so far only 15% of researchers are doing it spontaneously. Citation impact is rewarded by universities (through promotions and salary increases) and by research-funders such as SSHRC (through grant funding and renewal) at a conservative estimate of 100 dollars per citation. If we multiply this by the 85% of Canada's annual journal article output that is not yet self-archived, this translates into an annual loss of 2.125 million dollars in revenue to Canadian researchers for not having done (or delegated) the few extra keystrokes per article it would have taken to self-archive their final drafts. But this impact loss translates into a far bigger one for the Canadian public, if we reckon it as the loss of potential returns on its research investment. As a proportion of the Canada’s yearly 1.5 bn dollars research expenditure (yielding 50,000 articles x 5.9 = 295,000 citations), our conservative estimate would be 50% x 85% x 1.5 bn = 640 mn dollars worth of loss in potential research impact(125,375 potential citations lost). The solution is obvious, and it is the one the RCUK is proposing in the UK: to extend the existing universal 'publish or perish' requirement to 'publish and also self-archive your final draft on your institutional website'. The time to close this 50%-250% research impact gap is already well overdue. This is the historic moment for Canada to set an example for the world, showing how to maximise the return on the public investment in research in the online era.


   35.    Harnad, S.,  "Maximizing Research Impact Through Institutional and National Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates. In: CRIS2006. Current Research Information Systems: Open Access Institutional Repositories, 11-13 May 2006, Bergen, Norwa".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12093/2/harnad-crisrev.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/Autoarchivo/Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen:  No research institution can afford all the journals its researchers may need, so all articles are losing research impact (usage and citations). Articles made “Open Access,” (OA) by self-archiving them on the web are cited twice as much, but only 15% of articles are being spontaneously self-archived. The only institutions approaching 100% self-archiving are those that mandate it. Surveys show that 95% of authors will comply with a self-archiving mandate; the actual expe-rience of institutions with mandates has confirmed this. What institutions and funders need to mandate is that (1) immediately upon acceptance for publication, (2) the author’s final draft must be (3) deposited into the Institutional Repository. Only the depositing needs to be mandated; set-ting access privileges to the full-text as either OA or Restricted Access (RA) can be left up to the author. For articles published in the 93% of journals that have already endorsed self-archiving, access can be set as OA immediately; for the remaining 7%, authors can email the eprint in re-sponse to individual email requests automatically forwarded by the Repository.


   36.    Harnad, S.,  "OA Impact Advantage = EA + (AA) + (QB) + QA + (CA) + UA. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12085/1/OAA.html

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/Análisis de citas

Resumen: The OA impact advantage arises from at least the following 6 component factors, three of them (2,3,5) temporary, three of them permanent (1,4,6): 1. EA: EARLY ADVANTAGE, beginning already at the pre-refereeing preprint stage. Research that is reported earlier can begin being used and built upon earlier. The result turns out to be not just that it gets its quota of citations sooner, but that quota actually goes up, permanently. This is probably because earlier uptake has a greater cumulative effect on the research cycle. 2. (AA): ARXIV ADVANTAGE, the special advantage of self-archiving specifically in Arxiv for physicists, because it is a central point of call: OAI-interoperable Institutional Repositories is likely -- for many reasons -- to supersede this, so it will eventually make zero difference which OAI-compliant IR one deposits in, as access will be through OAI cross-archive harvesters, not directly through individual OAI Archives. 3. (QB): QUALITY BIAS, arsing from article/author self-selection; this does not play a causal role in increasing impact: The higher-quality (hence also higher-impact) articles/authors are somewhat more likely to be self-archived/self-archivers in these early (15%) days of self-archiving: this bias will of course vanish as self-archiving approaches 100%).
4. QA: QUALITY ADVANTAGE, allowing the high-quality articles to compete on a level playing field, freed of current handicaps and biasses arising from access affordability differences. A permanent effect. 5. (CA): COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, for self-archived papers over non-self-archived ones, in early (15%) days; this too will of course disappear once self-archiving nears 100%, but at this moment it is in fact a powerful extra incentive, for the low % self-archiving fields, institutions and individuals. 6. UA: USAGE ADVANTAGE: OA articles are downloaded and read three times as much. This too is a permanent effect. (There is also a sizeable correlation between early download counts and later citation counts.)


   37.    Harnad, S.,  "Online, Continuous, Metrics-Based Research Assessment. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12130/1/rae-metric.html

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Investigación/Evaluación/Impacto/Bibliometría

Resumen: As predicted, and long urged, the UK's wasteful, time-consuming Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is to be replaced by metrics. RAE outcome is most closely correlated (r = 0.98) with the metric of prior RCUK research funding (this is no doubt in part a "Matthew Effect"), but research citation impact is another metric highly correlated with the RAE outcome, even though it is not explicitly counted. Now it can be explicitly counted (along with other powerful new performance metrics) and all the rest of the ritualistic time-wasting can be abandoned, without further ceremony. This represents a great boost for institutional self-archiving in Open Access Institutional Repositories, not only because that is the obvious, optimal means of submission to the new metric RAE, but because it is also a powerful means of maximising research impact, i.e., maximising those metrics.


   38.    Harnad, S.,  "Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno's Paralysis".  Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, No. 8,  2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12094/02/harnad-jacobsbook.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Acceso abierto/Aspecto económico/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: Open Access (OA) means free access for all would-be users webwide to all articles published in all peer-reviewed research journals across all scholarly and scientific disciplines. 100% OA is optimal for research, researchers, their institutions, and their funders because it maximizes research access and usage. It is also 100% feasible: authors just need to deposit ('self-archive') their articles on their own institutional websites. Hence 100% OA is inevitable. Yet the few keystrokes needed to reach it have been paralyzed for a decade by a seemingly endless series of phobias (about everything from piracy and plagiarism to posterity and priorities), each easily shown to be groundless, yet persistent and recurring. The cure for this 'Zeno's Paralysis' is for researchers' institutions and funders to mandate the keystrokes, just as they already mandate publishing, and for the very same reason: to maximize research usage, impact and progress. 95% of researchers have said they would comply with a self-archiving mandate; 93% of journals have already given self-archiving their blessing; and those institutions that have already mandated it are successfully and rapidly moving toward 100% OA.


   39.    Harnad, S.,  "Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno's Paralysis".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12094/2/harnad-jacobsbook.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/Autoarchivo/Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen:  Open Access (OA) means free access for all would-be users webwide to all articles published in all peer-reviewed research journals across all scholarly and scientific disciplines. 100% OA is optimal for research, researchers, their institutions, and their funders because it maximizes research access and usage. It is also 100% feasible: authors just need to deposit ("self-archive") their articles on their own institutional websites. Hence 100% OA is inevitable. Yet the few keystrokes needed to reach it have been paralyzed for a decade by a seemingly endless series of phobias (about everything from piracy and plagiarism to posterity and priorities), each easily shown to be groundless, yet persistent and recurring. The cure for this "Zeno's Paralysis" is for researchers' institutions and funders to mandate the keystrokes, just as they already mandate publishing, and for the very same reason: to maximize research usage, impact and progress. 95% of researchers have said they would comply with a self-archiving mandate; 93% of journals have already given self-archiving their blessing; and those institutions that have already mandated it are successfully and rapidly moving toward 100% OA.


   40.    Harnad, S.,  "Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How? (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13098/1/arch.html

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Autoarchivo/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen:  With the adoption of Open Access Self-Archiving Mandates worldwide so near, this is the opportune time to think of optimizing how they are formulated. Seemingly small parametric or verbal variants can make a vast difference to their success, speed, and completeness of coverage: --What to mandate: The primary target content is the author's final, peer-reviewed draft ("postprint") of all journal articles accepted for publication. --Why to mandate self-archiving: The purpose of mandating OA self-archiving is to maximize research usage and impact by maximizing user access to research findings. --Where to self-archive: The optimal locus for self-archiving is the author's own OAI-compliant Institutional Repository (IR). (It is highly inadvisable to mandate direct deposit in a Central Repository (CR) -- whether discipline-based, funder-based, multidisciplinary or national. The right way to get OA content into CRs is to harvest it from the IRs (via the OAI protocol).) --When to self-archive: The author's final, peer-reviewed draft (postprint) should be deposited in the author's IR immediately upon acceptance for publication. (The deposit must be immediate; any allowable delay or embargo should apply only to the access-setting, i.e., whether access to the deposited article is immediately set to Open Access or provisionally set to Closed Access, in which only the author can access the deposited text.) --How to self-archive: Depositing a postprint in an author's IR and keying in its metadata (author, title, journal, date, etc.) takes less than 10 minutes per paper. Deposit analyses comparing mandated and unmandated self-archiving rates have shown that mandates (and only mandates) work, with self-archiving approaching 100% of annual institutional research output within a few years. Without a mandate, IR content just hovers for years at the spontaneous 15% self-archiving rate.


   41.    Harnad, S.,  "Preprints, Postprints, Peer Review, and Institutional vs. Central Self-Archiving. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13101/1/arxiv.html

Descriptores: Repositorios disciplinares/Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo/Autoarchivo

Resumen: Arxiv is a Central Repository (CR) in which physicists have been self-archiving their unrefereed preprints and their peer-reviewed postprints since 1991. There is now a growing movement toward distributed Institutional Repositories (IRs). Thanks to the OAI Protocol, all OAI-compliant IRs and CRs are now interoperable: their metadata can be harvested into search engines that treat all of their contents as if they were in one big virtual CR. What authors self-archive is their peer-reviewed publications, not just their unrefereed preprints. An archive is merely a repository, not a certifier of having met a peer-reviewed journal's quality standards. Since the research institutions themselves are the primary research providers, with the direct interest in maximising the uptake and usage of their own research output, the natural place for them to deposit their own output is in their own IRs. Any central collections can be harvested via OAI. Institutions are also best placed to monitor and reward compliance with self-archiving mandates, both their own institutional mandates and those of the funders of their institutional research output. Arxiv has played an important role in getting us where we are, but it is likely that the era of CRs is coming to a close, and the era of distributed, interoperable IRs is now coming into its own in an entirely natural way, in keeping with the distributed nature of the Net/Web itself.


   42.    Harnad, S.,  "Publish or Perish ­ Self-Archive to Flourish: The Green Route to Open Access. ERCIM News, 64 .".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11715/1/harnad-ercim.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Investigación/Evaluación/Impacto/Bibliometría

Resumen: The online-age practice of self-archiving has been shown to increase citation impact by a dramatic 50-250%, but so far only 15% of researchers are actually doing it. If a country invests R billion Euros in its research, this translates into the loss of 50% x 85% = 42.5% or close to R/2 billion Euros’ worth of potential citation impact simply for failing to self-archive it all. It is as if someone bought R billion Euros worth of batteries and lost 42.5% of their potential usage simply for failing to refrigerate them all before use. Europe is losing almost 50% of the potential return on its research investment until research funders and institutions mandate that all research findings must be made freely accessible to all would-be users, webwide


   43.    Harnad, S.,  "Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11168/2/reb-stm.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: The STM have written a response to the RCUK proposal in which they too, like the ALPSP, adduce reasons for delaying and modifying the implementation of the RCUK self-archiving policy. The principal substantive misunderstanding about the RCUK policy itself is that the STM is arguing as if RCUK were proposing to mandate a different publishing business model (Open Access [OA] Publishing) whereas RCUK is proposing to mandate no such thing: It is merely proposing to mandate that RCUK fundees self-archive the final author’s drafts of journal articles resulting from RCUK-funded research in order to make their findings accessible to all potential users whose institutions cannot afford access to the published journal version – in order to maximise the uptake, usage and impact of British research output. As such, the author’s free self-archived version is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the journal’s paid version.


   44.    Harnad, S.,  "The Research-Impact Cycle, Open Access, and Self-Archiving. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10636/1/self-archiving.ppt

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo/Comunicación científica/Investigación

Resumen: Presentación de : Harnad, S. (2005) The Research-Impact Cycle, Open Access, and Self-Archiving. (Unpublished)


   45.    Harnad, S.,  "Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Flawed Method and No Data. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13179/1/prc.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Revistas electrónicas /Libre acceso/Suscripciones

Resumen:  There is no evidence to date that Open Access (OA) self-archiving causes journal cancellations. The Publishing Research Consortium commissioned a survey of acquisitions librarian preferences to see whether they could predict such cancellations in the future using a "Share of Preference model," but the study has a glaring methodological flaw that invalidates its conclusion (that self-archiving will cause cancellations). No mention was made of OA self-archiving (in order to avoid "bias"); but, as a result, the model cannot make any prediction at all about the effects of self-archiving on cancellations. The questions on which it is based were about relative preferences for acquisition among competing "products" having different combinations of properties, and the model treated OA (0% cost) as if it were just one of those product properties. But self-archived articles are not products purchased by acquisitions librarians: they are papers given away by researchers, anarchically, and in parallel. Hence from the survey's "Share of Preference model" it is impossible to draw any conclusions about self-archiving causing cancellations by librarians, because the librarians were never asked what they would cancel, under what conditions; just what hypothetical products they would prefer over what. And of course they would prefer lower-priced, immediate products over higher-priced, delayed products! But if all articles in all journals were self-archived, the "Share of Preference model" does not give us the slightest clue about what journals librarians would acquire or cancel. Nor does it give us a clue as to what they would do between now (c. 15% self-archiving) and then (100% self-archiving). The banal fact that everyone would rather have something for free rather than paying for it certainly does not answer this question, or fill the gaping evidential gap about the existence, size, or timing of any hypothetical effect of self-archiving on cancellations. Nor does the study's one nontrivial finding: that librarians don't much care about the difference between a refereed author's draft and a published-PDF.


   46.    Harnad, S.,  "Self-archiving should be mandatory. Research Information .".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12738/1/reseearchinf.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Mandato de autoarchivo/Archivos abiertos

Resumen: Self-Archiving needs to mandated by research institutions and funders in order to maximise research usage and impact.


   47.    Harnad, S. B. T. V. F. C. L. H. S. G. Y. O. C. S. H. and Hilf, E.,  "The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials review, 30 .".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2004. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/9939/1/impact.html

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/Análisis de citas

Resumen: The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users, hence they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles Open Access (OA, i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the "golden" road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the "green" road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). Only 5% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10-20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers' employers and funders, as the UK and US have recently recommended, and universities need to implement that mandate.


   48.    Harnad, S.,  "Applying Optimality Findings: Critique of Graham Taylor's Critique of RCUK Self-Archiving Mandate".  Cogprints,  2005. http://cogprints.org/4449/

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo/Revistas científicas/Revistas electrónicas/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: Graham Taylor, director of educational,  academic and professional publishing at the Publishers Association, criticises the Research Councils UK (RCUK) proposal to require that the author of every published article based on RCUK-funded research must ?self-archive? a supplementary ?open access? version on the web so it can be freely read and used by any researcher  worldwide whose institution cannot afford the journal in which it was published. The purpose of the RCUK policy is to maximise the usage and impact of research. Taylor argues that it may have an adverse affect on some journals. This critique points out that there is no evidence  from 15 years of open-access self-archiving that it has had any adverse affect on journals and a great deal of evidence that it enhances research impact.


   49.    Harnad, S.,  "Asymptotic Costs of Gold Open Access Journal Publication".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13964/1/arch-asymptotic.html

Descriptores: Revistas electrónicas /Libre acceso/Costes

Resumen: Martin Osborne, the managing editor of the Open Access Journal Theoretical Economics, points out that the publication fee ($75) for his journal is an order of magnitude lower than what I called the "going rate" for Gold OA journal publishing fees. He also points out that if institutional subscriptions were all cancelled and publishing costs were of the order of those charged by his journal, then there would be considerable net savings. I reply that he is quite right to point out that there are Gold OA journals that charge less than the going rate (indeed there are many that do not charge at all). I also agree that the fee his journal charges, though a bit on the low side, is much closer to what will prove to be the true per-article cost of OA publishing, once journals all convert to OA publishing. But the reality is that only about 10% of journals are OA today, and the publishing charges are what they are, today. And with most of the potential funds for paying them still tied up in institutional subscriptions, those publishing charges are an unaffordable burden for most authors, today. They are also an unnecessary burden, if the goal is to provide OA to every published article, to maximize its accessibility, usage and impact, for that can be done through Green OA self-archiving, by the research community, for itself. In contrast, converting journals to Gold OA, and at an affordable price, is not something the research community can do for itself. The research community can, however, mandate Green OA self-archiving, and thereby provide 100% OA, today. That Green OA itself might in turn eventually generate cost-cutting, downsizing, and conversion to Gold OA by journals, at a fair price, paid for out of the institutional subscription cancellation savings. Meanwhile, it is folly for the research community to just keep waiting for Gold OA, when providing 100% Green OA is already fully within its reach. [math mode missing closing $]


   50.    Harnad, S.,  "Cure Gold Fever With Green Deposits. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13965/1/arch-goldfever.html

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo /Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: This is a reply to Matt Hodgkinson's posting in his journalology blog: (1) The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate is a compromise deliberately designed to end deadlocks delaying the adoption of self-archiving mandates, by making publisher copyright policies or embargoes moot. It is not a substitute for OA but an accelerator toward OA. (2) There is no discovery problem with articles that have been deposited in OAI-compliant Institutional Repositories (IRs) . The discovery problem is with the articles that have not been deposited. (3) I don't criticise those who say Gold OA will lower publication costs. (I think it will too, eventually.) I criticise those who keep perseverating with Gold OA and costs while usage and impact continue to be lost and Green OA mandates (or ID/OA) can already put an immediate end to that loss, once and for all, right now. (4) CERN could have done a far greater service for other disciplines and for the growth of OA if it had put its weight and energy behind promoting its own own Green OA policy as a model worldwide, instead of diverting attention and energy to the needless and premature endgame of Gold OA within its own subfields. (5) Paying for Gold OA in a hybrid-Gold journal is indeed double-payment while subscriptions are still paying all publication costs. (6) I criticise depositing in CRs instead of depositing in Institutional Repositories (IRs), especially mandating deposit in CRs instead of in IRs. (7) I have no wish to vye for priority for the term "open access". I used "free online access" for years without feeling any pressing need for a more formal term of art.
(8) Yes I (and no doubt others too, independently) mooted the notion of journals funded by means other than the subscription model (later to become Gold OA) in 1997 and even earlier (1994); but I never for a microsecond thought Gold OA would come before Green OA. And it hasn't; nor will it.


   51.    Harnad, S.,  "E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus Online.".  Cogprints, 2000, pp. 78-87. http://cogprints.org/1701/

Descriptores: Edición electrónica/Archivos abiertos/Autoarchivo/Derechos de autor/Revisión científica/Gestión del conocimiento

Resumen: The author of this paper has been advocating for some time that online public self-archiving of the refereed journal literature  be introduced without delay. Indeed he sees it as inevitable in all disciplines within a very short time (and as optimal for research and researchers). He also argues that it can be achieved without compromising the peer reviewed journal literature in any way.


   52.    Harnad, S.,  "Electronic Preprints and Postprints".  Cogprints, 2003. http://cogprints.org/3019/

Descriptores: Archivos abiertos/Eprints

Resumen: Preprints are drafts of a research paper before peer review and postprints are drafts of a research paper after peer review. Researchers have always given away their preprints and postprints in order to increase the impact of their work. The online age has at last made it possible for researchers to maximize their work's visibility, usage and impact by self-archiving their preprints and postprints in institutional Eprint Archives, making them openly accessible to all would-be users worldwide.


   53.    Harnad, S.,  "For Whom the Gate Tolls? How and Why to Free the Refereed Research Literature Online Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving, Now.".  Cogprints, 2001. http://cogprints.org/1639/

Descriptores: Revistas científicas/Edición electrónica/Autoarchivo

Resumen: ABSTRACT: All refereed journals will soon be available online; most of them already are. This means that anyone will be able to access them from any networked desk-top. The literature will all be interconnected by citation, author, and keyword/subject links, allowing for unheard-of power and ease of access and navigability. Successive drafts of pre-refereeing preprints will be linked to the official refereed draft, as well as to any subsequent corrections, revisions, updates, comments, responses, and underlying empirical databases, all enhancing the self-correctiveness, interactivity and productivity of scholarly and scientific research and communication in remarkable new ways. New scientometric indicators of digital impact are also emerging < http://opcit.eprints.org> to chart the online course of knowledge. But there is still one last frontier to cross before science reaches the optimal and the inevitable: Just as there is no longer any need for research or researchers to be constrained by the access-blocking restrictions of paper distribution, there is no longer any need to be constrained by the impact-blocking financial fire-walls of Subscription/Site-License/Pay-Per-View (S/L/P) tolls for this give-away literature. Its author/researchers have always donated their research reports for free (and its referee/researchers have refereed for free), with the sole goal of maximizing their impact on subsequent research (by accessing the eyes and minds of fellow-researchers, present and future) and hence on society. Generic (OAi-compliant) software is now available free so that institutions can immediately create Eprint Archives in which their authors can self-archive all their refereed papers for free for all forever < http://www.eprints.org/>. These interoperable Open Archives < http://www.openarchives.org> will then be harvested into global, jointly searchable "virtual archives" (e.g., <http://arc.cs.odu.edu/>). "Scholarly Skywriting" in this PostGutenberg Galaxy will be dramatically (and measurably) more interactive and productive, spawning its own new digital metrics of productivity and impact, allowing for an online "embryology of knowledge."


   54.    Harnad, S.,  "Free at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Journals".  Cogprints, 1999. http://cogprints.org/1685/

Descriptores: Revisión científica/Archivos abiertos/Autoarchivo/Edición electrónica

Resumen: I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind as to what the optimal and inevitable outcome of all this will be: The Give-Away literature will be free at last online, in one global, interlinked virtual library (see <http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/citation.html>), and its QC/C expenses will be paid for up-front, out of the S/L/P savings. The only question is: When? This piece is written in the hope of wiping the potential smirk off Posterity's face by persuading the academic cavalry, now that they have been led to the waters of self-archiving, that they should just go ahead and drink!


   55.    Harnad, S.,  "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Revistas electrónicas /Libre acceso

Resumen: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output. Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100% Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the research community's access and impact problems are already solved. If and when 100% Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no one knows whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows anarchically, article by article, not journal by journal) then the cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals. As subscription revenues shrink, institutional windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service provision alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and access-provision and archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA.


   56.    Harnad, S.,  "How and Why To Free All Refereed Research From Access- and Impact-Barriers Online, Now".  Cogprints, 2001. http://cogprints.org/1640/

Descriptores: Revistas científicas/Edición electrónica/Archivos abiertos

Resumen: Researchers publish their findings in order to make an impact on research, not in order to sell their words. Access-tolls are barriers to research impact. Authors can now free their refereed research papers from all access tolls immediately by self-archiving them on-line in their own institution's Eprint Archives. Free eprints.org software creates Archives compliant with the Open Archives Initiative metadata-tagging Protocol OAI 1.0. These distributed institutional Archives are interoperable and can hence be harvested into global "virtual" archives, citation-linked and freely navigable by all. Self-archiving should enhance research productivity and impact as well as providing powerful new ways of monitoring and measuring it.


   57.    Harnad, S.,  "Mandates and Metrics:How Open Repositories Enable Universities to Manage, Measure and Maximise their Research Assets".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2008. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14990/1/openaccess.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: PPT presentation prepared for use in informing universities on open access self-archiving policy-making.


   58.    Harnad, S.,  "Maximizing Research Impact Through Institutional and National Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates".  Cogprints,  2006. http://cogprints.org/4787/

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/Bibliometría/Autoarchivo/Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: No research institution can afford all the  journals its researchers may need, so all articles are losing research impact (usage and citations). Articles made ?Open Access,? (OA) by self-archiving them on the web are cited twice as much, but only 15% of articles are being spontaneously self-archived. The only institutions approaching 100% self-archiving are those that mandate it. Surveys show that 95% of authors will comply with a self-archiving mandate; the actual expe-rience of institutions with mandates has confirmed this. What institutions and funders need to mandate is that (1) immediately upon acceptance for publication, (2) the author?s final draft must be (3) deposited into the Institutional Repository. Only the depositing needs to be mandated; set-ting access privileges to the full-text as either OA or Restricted Access (RA) can be left up to the author. For articles published in the 93% of journals that have already endorsed self-archiving, access can be set as OA immediately; for the remaining 7%, authors can email the eprint in re-sponse to individual email requests automatically forwarded by the Repository.


   59.    Harnad, S.,  "Maximizing university research impact through self-archiving".  Cogprints, 2003. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12093/2/harnad-crisrev.pdf

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Autoarchivo/Visibilidad/Impacto

Resumen: (1) Universities need to adopt a self-archiving policy -- an extension of their existing "publish or perish" policy to "publish with maximal impact". A potential model for such a policy can be found at http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html along with (free) software for creating a standardized online university CV, linking all entries for peer-reviewed articles to their full text self-archived in the university eprint archives: http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi


   60.    Harnad, S.,  "Measuring and Maximising UK Research Impact".  Cogprints, 2003. http://cogprints.org/3025/

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Autoarchivo/Visibilidad/Impacto/Inglaterra

Resumen: The citation counts of papers whose full texts are freely accessible on the web are over 300% higher than those of papers that are only accessible on paper, or on toll-access websites. All of UK research stands to increase its impact dramatically by putting it all online. All that is needed is that every UK researcher should have a standardised online CV, continuously updated with all the performance indicators the RAE wishes to count, with every journal paper listed in that CV linked to its full-text in that university's online "eprint" archive (front-matter and bibliography only for books). Webmetric assessment engines can do all the rest, harvesting and analyzing the data. At Southampton we have already designed (free) software for creating the RAE CVs and eprint archives, along with citebase, a webmetric engine that analyses citations and downloads. The only thing still needed is a UK university policy of self-archiving all research output to maximize its impact (we have a draft model for that too) encouraged by a UK national policy of self-archiving all research output to assess its impact.


   61.    Harnad, S.,  "Minotaur: Six Proposals for Freeing the Refereed Literature Online: A Comparison:".  Ariadne, No. 28, 2001. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/minotaur/

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Servicios de Información/Internet/Almacenamiento

Resumen:  Stevan Harnad argues for the self-archiving alternative.


   62.    Harnad, S.,  " On "Open Access" Publishers Who Oppose Open Access Self-Archiving Mandates. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13650/2/oapub.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo /Acceso abierto/Mandato de autoarchivo/Editores

Resumen: The online age has made powerful new benefits for research possible, but these benefits entail a profound conflict of interest between (1) what is best for the research journal publishing industry and (2) what is best for research, researchers, universities, research institutions, research funders, the vast research and development (R&D) industry, and the tax-paying public that funds the research. What is at stake is (1) a hypothetical risk of potential future losses in subscription revenue for publishers versus (2) actual, ongoing losses in current research impact for researchers. How this conflict of interest will have to be resolved is already clear: Research publishing is a service industry; it will have to adapt to what is best for research, and not vice versa. And what is best for research is Open Access (OA), provided through research funders and universities mandating the OA self-archiving of all their researchers' peer-reviewed research output. The conventional (non-OA) publishing industry's first commitment is of course to what is best for its own business interests, rather than to what is best for research and researchers; hence it is lobbying vigorously against the many OA self-archiving mandates that are currently being adopted, recommended and petitioned for by the research community worldwide. But what is especially disappointing, if not deplorable, is when "OA" publishers take the very same stance against OA itself (by opposing OA self-archiving mandates) that non-OA publishers do. Conventional publisher opposition to OA will be viewed, historically, as having been a regrettable, counterproductive (and eventually countermanded) but comprehensible strategy, from a purely business standpoint. OA publisher opposition to OA, however, will be seen as having been self-deluded if not hypocritical. I close with a reply to Jan Velterop, of Springer's "Open Choice": Jan opposes Green OA self-archiving mandates, because they would provide OA without paying the publisher extra for it. But all publishing costs are currently being paid for already: via subscriptions. So opposition to Green OA self-archiving mandates by a hybrid Gold "Open Choice" Publisher sounds very much like wanting to have their cake and eat it too (even though that is precisely what they like to describe Green OA advocates as trying to do!).


   63.    Harnad, S.,  "Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2008. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15002/

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Recolectores de metadatos/Interpolaridad

Resumen: On December 26 2007 a mandate to self-archive all NIH-funded research articles became US law. However, the benefits of Congress's wise decision to mandate deposit immediately upon acceptance for publication are lost if that deposit is required to be made directly in PubMed Central, rather than in each author's own Institutional Repository (and thence harvested to PubMed Central): With direct IR deposit, authors can use their own IR's "email eprint request" button to fulfill would-be users' access needs during any embargo. And, most important of all, with direct IR deposit mandated by NIH, each of the world's universities and research institutions can go on to complement the NIH self-archiving mandate for the NIH-funded fraction of its research output with an institutional mandate to deposit the rest of its research output, likewise to be deposited in its own IR. This will systematically scale up to 100% OA.


   64.    Harnad, S.,  "Promoting open access to research. The Hindu .".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13147/4/hindu.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Comunicación científica/Países en desarrollo

Resumen: There is no need for developing countries to wait for the developed countries to mandate Open Access (OA) self-archiving: They have more to gain because currently both their access and their impact is disproportionately low, relative to their actual and potential research productivity and influence. Lately there have been many abstract avowals of support for the Principle of OA, but what the world needs now is concrete commitments to its Practice. Under the guidance of India’s tireless OA advocate, Subbiah Arunachalam, there will be a two day workshop on research publication and OA at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore on November 2-3, at which the three most research-active developing countries – India, China and Brazil – will frame the “Bangalore Commitment”: a commitment to mandate OA self-archiving in their own respective countries and thereby set an example for emulation by the rest of the world


   65.    Harnad, S.,  "Repositories for Institutional Open Access: Mandated Deposit Policies. (Submitted)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13104/1/provosts.html

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo/Autoarchivo

Resumen:  The actual impact of Open Access (OA) self-archiving on research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public (which has all already been shown to be highly positive) must be clearly separated from any hypothetical impact it might have on publishers (whether commercial or scholarly-society publishers). Researchers do not conduct research -- nor does the tax-paying public fund research -- for the benefit of publishers. The sole point at issue concerning the FRPAA is whether or not self-archiving should be mandated.


   66.    Harnad, S.,  "The Self-Archiving Alternative".  Cogprints, 2001. http://cogprints.org/2129/

Descriptores: Edición electrónica/Revisión científica/Embargo/Autoarchivo/Pubmed Central

Resumen: Line Roberts et al., in "Building A "GenBank" of the Published Literature"


   67.    Harnad, S.,  "The Self-Archiving Initiative".  Cogprints, 2001, pp. 1024-1025. http://cogprints.org/1642/

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Edición electrónica/Acceso abierto

Resumen: Unlike the authors of books and magazine articles, who write their texts for royalty or fee income, the authors of refereed journal


   68.    Harnad, S.,  "Six Proposals for Freeing the Refereed Literature Online: A Comparison".  Cogprints, 2001. http://cogprints.org/1702/

Descriptores: Edición electrónica/Revisión científica/Autoarchivo/Derechos de autor

Resumen: Currently there are six candidate strategies for freeing the refereed research literature: (1) Authors paying journal publishers for publisher-supplied online-offprints. (2) Asking journals to give away their contents online for free and boycotting those that do not. (3) Library consortial support (e.g. SPARC) for lower-priced journals. (4) Delayed journal give-aways -- 6-to-12+ months after publication. (5) Giving up established journals and peer review altogether, in favour of self-archived preprints and post-hoc, ad-lib commentary. (6) Self-archiving all preprints and postprints. (1) - (5) all require waiting for policy changes and, even once these are available, all require a needless sacrifice on the part of authors. With (1) the sacrifice is the needless author offprint expense, with (2) it is the author's right to submit to their preferred journals, with (3) it is (as before) the author's potential impact on those potential users who cannot afford even the lowered access tolls, with (4) it is the impact of the all-important first 6-12 months after publication, and with (5) the sacrifice is the quality of the literature itself. Only (6) asks researchers for no sacrifices at all, and no waiting for any change in journal policy or price. The only delay factor has been authors' own relative sluggishness in just going ahead and doing it! Nevertheless, (6) is well ahead of the other 5 candidates, in terms of the total number of papers thus freed already, thanks to the lead taken by the physicists.


   69.    Harnad, S.,  "Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13967/1/arch-cornell.html

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo /Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: Cornell University's Institutional Repository (IR) so far houses only a very small percentage of its own annual research output, even though this output is the target content for Open Access (OA) IRs. As such, Cornell's IR is no different from all other IRs worldwide except those that have already adopted a "Green OA" deposit mandate. Alma Swan's international, multidisciplinary surveys have found that most researchers report they will not deposit without a mandate but will comply willingly if deposit is mandated by their institutions and/or their funders. Arthur Sale's comparative analyses of mandated and unmandated IRs have confirmed this in actual practise. Cornell's IR too has confirmed this with high deposit rates for the few subcollections that are mandated. IRs with Green OA mandates approach 100% OA within about 2 years. The worldwide baseline for unmandated self-archiving is about 15%.  Davis & Connolly's 2007 D-Lib article takes no cognizance of this prior published information. It surveys a sample of Cornell researchers for their attitudes to self-archiving and finds the usual series of uninformed misunderstandings, already long-catalogued and answered in published FAQs. The article then draws some incorrect conclusions derived entirely from incorrect assumptions it first makes, among them the following: (1) The purpose of Green OA self-archiving is to compete with journals? (No, the purpose is to supplement subscription access by depositing the author's final draft online, free for all users who cannot access the subscription-based version.) (2) IRs should instead store the "grey literature"? (No, OA's target content is peer-reviewed research.) (3) IRs are for preservation? (No, they are for research access-provision.) (4) Some disciplines may not benefit from Green OA self-archiving? (The only disciplines that would not benefit would be those that do not benefit from maximizing the usage and impact of their peer-reviewed journal article output.)  The only thing Cornell needs to do if it wants its IR filled with Cornell's own research output is to mandate it.


   70.    Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Hajjem, C., and Hilf, E. R.,  "The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update".  Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W63-4S0HC0P-1/2/273ce267efe063d9e089fef26cd0bb16

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/P/Impacto

Resumen: The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users; hence, they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles open access (OA, i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the "golden" road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the "green" road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). About 10% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10-20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers' employers and funders, as they are now increasingly beginning to do.


   71.    Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., and Hilf, E. R.,  "The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access".  Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2004, pp. 310-314. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W63-4DS8FN9-F/2/8604ea015ea3f8c71f055271f050255a

Descriptores: Impacto/Acceso abierto

Resumen: The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users; hence, they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles Open Access (OA; i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the "golden" road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the "green" road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). Only 5% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10-20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers' employers and funders, as the United Kingdom and the United States have recently recommended, and universities need to implement that mandate.


   72.    Harnad, S., Carr, L., and Brody, T.,  "How and Why To Free All Refereed Research From Access- and Impact-Barriers Online, Now".  Libraries Webzine , No. 4, 2001. http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/4/papers/1/

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso a la documentación/Acceso a la información/Internet/Open Archives Initiative

Resumen: Researchers publish their findings in order to make an impact on research, not in order to sell their words. Access-tolls are barriers to research impact. Authors can now free their refereed research papers from all access tolls immediately by self-archiving them on-line in their own institution's Eprint Archives. Free eprints.org software creates Archives compliant with the Open Archives Initiative metadata-tagging Protocol OAI 1.0. These distributed institutional Archives are interoperable and can hence be harvested into global 'virtual' archives, citation-linked and freely navigable by all. Self-archiving should enhance research productivity and impact as well as providing powerful new ways of monitoring and measuring it.


   73.    Mercer, H., Rosenblum, B., and Emmett, A.,  "A multifaceted approach to promote a university repository: The University of Kansas' experience".  OCLC Systems & Services, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2007. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750710748496

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Bibliotecas universitarias/Bibliotecas digitales/Preservación/Edición electrónica

Resumen: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of KU ScholarWorks, the University of Kansas' institutional repository, and the various strategies used to promote and populate it. Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes how KU ScholarWorks came into being, and discusses the variety of activities employed to publicize the repository and encourage faculty to deposit their work. In addition, the paper discusses some of the concerns expressed by faculty members, and some of the obstacles encountered in getting them to use the repository. The paper concludes with some observations about KU's efforts, an assessment of the success of the program to date, and suggests some next steps the program may take. Findings – The paper found that KU ScholarWorks has relied on a “self-archiving” model, which requires regular communication with faculty and long-term community building. Repository content continues to grow at a steady pace, but uptake among faculty has been slow. In the absence of mandates requiring faculty to deposit work, organizations running institutional repositories must continue to aggressively pursue a variety of strategies to promote repositories to faculty and encourage them to deposit their scholarship. Originality/value – KU's experience will help other institutions develop institutional repositories by providing examples of marketing strategies, and by promoting a greater understanding of faculty behavior and concerns with regard to institutional repositories.


   74.    Morris, S.,  "Open Access: How Are Publishers Reacting?".  Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2004, pp. 304-307. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W63-4DS8FN9-7/2/63dd0991b8496ff428d6a97b934c22f7

Descriptores: Acceso abierto

Resumen: Open Access (OA)--defined simply as "free, unrestricted access (to primary research articles) for everyone"--exists in various forms. Authors can achieve OA either by self-archiving their articles on the Web or by publishing in an OA journal. OA journals themselves may adopt a model of delayed OA, partial (or hybrid) OA, or full, immediate OA. But for any of these alternative models of cost recovery to work, it is necessary to know what the real costs are. More research is needed to begin to evaluate the financial and nonfinancial effects of Open Access on all those involved.


   75.    Royster, P.,  "The institutional repository at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Its first year of operations".  OCLC Systems & Services, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2007. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750710748487

Descriptores: Archivos abiertos/Repositorios institucionales/Bibliotecas universitarias

Resumen: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a short history of the first year of operation of an institutional repository (IR) at a midwestern state university. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is anecdotal, reviewing aims, rationales, and strategies, and offering advice and some counter-intuitive lessons. Findings – The paper finds that voluntary self-archiving by faculty or campus publishers is exceptional or rare, but there are other ways of populating an IR with valuable content. IR's should seek original material, including new dissertations, as well as previously published articles. IR's should offer a variety of services to make faculty participation as effortless as possible. IR's can increase usage by efforts directed at publicizing their resources and offerings. Research limitations/implications – The paper concerns one institution, but the challenges faced are common to all new university institutional repositories. Originality/value – This paper is a useful source of information for those considering, planning, or operating an institutional repository.


   76.    Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L., and Harnad, S.,  "The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable".  Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, No. 20, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12369/03/shad-bch.rtf

Descriptores: Google/Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto

Resumen: Further development of GNU EPrints and Citebase, together with the growing webwide database of Open Access (OA) articles, and the data we will collect and analyse from it, will allow us to do several things for which the unique historic moment has arrived with the Research Assessment Exercise's recent transition to metrics: (1) Motivate more researchers to provide OA by self-archiving; (2) map the growth of OA across disciplines, countries and languages; (3) navigate the OA literature using citation-linking and impact ranking; (4) measure, extrapolate and predict the research impact of individuals, groups, institutions, disciplines, languages and countries; (5) measure research performance and productivity, (6) assess candidates for research funding; (7) assess the outcome of research funding, (8) map the course of prior research lines, in terms of individuals, institutions, journals, fields, nations; (9) analyze and predict the direction of current and future research trajectories;(10) provide teaching and learning resources that guide students (via impact navigation) through the large and growing OA research literature in a way that navigating the web via google alone cannot come close to doing.


   77.    Shadbolt, N. B. T. C. L. and Harnad, S.,  "The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12369/2/shad-bch.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Impacto/EPrints

Resumen: Further development of GNU EPrints and Citebase, together with the growing webwide database of Open Access (OA) articles, and the data we will collect and analyse from it, will allow us to do several things for which the unique historic moment has arrived with the Research Assessment Exercise's recent transition to metrics: (1) Motivate more researchers to provide OA by self-archiving; (2) map the growth of OA across disciplines, countries and languages; (3) navigate the OA literature using citation-linking and impact ranking; (4) measure, extrapolate and predict the research impact of individuals, groups, institutions, disciplines, languages and countries; (5) measure research performance and productivity, (6) assess candidates for research funding; (7) assess the outcome of research funding, (8) map the course of prior research lines, in terms of individuals, institutions, journals, fields, nations; (9) analyze and predict the direction of current and future research trajectories;(10) provide teaching and learning resources that guide students (via impact navigation) through the large and growing OA research literature in a way that navigating the web via google alone cannot come close to doing.


   78.    Shadbolt, N. B. T. C. L. and Harnad, S.,  "The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12453/2/Shadbolt-final.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/EPrints/Citebase

Resumen: Further development of GNU EPrints and Citebase, together with the growing webwide database of Open Access (OA) articles, and the data we will collect and analyse from it, will allow us to do several things for which the unique historic moment has arrived with the Research Assessment Exercise's recent transition to metrics: (1) Motivate more researchers to provide OA by self-archiving; (2) map the growth of OA across disciplines, countries and languages; (3) navigate the OA literature using citation-linking and impact ranking; (4) measure, extrapolate and predict the research impact of individuals, groups, institutions, disciplines, languages and countries; (5) measure research performance and productivity, (6) assess candidates for research funding; (7) assess the outcome of research funding, (8) map the course of prior research lines, in terms of individuals, institutions, journals, fields, nations; (9) analyze and predict the direction of current and future research trajectories;(10) provide teaching and learning resources that guide students (via impact navigation) through the large and growing OA research literature in a way that navigating the web via google alone cannot come close to doing


   79.    Stemmer, B., Corre, M., and Joanette, Y.,  "The mind and brain scholar as a hitch-hiker in post-gutenberg galaxy: publishing at 2000 and beyond".  Cogprints, 2000. http://cogprints.org/149/

Descriptores: Edición electrónica/Autoarchivo/Derechos de autor/Archivos abiertos/Revistas científicas

Resumen: Electronic journal (e-journal) publishing has started to change the ways we think about publish-ing. However, many scholars and scientists in the mind and brain sciences are still ignorant of the new possibilities and on-going debates. This paper will provide a summary of the issues in-volved, give an update of the current discussion, and supply practical information on issues re-lated to e- journal publishing and self-archiving relevant for the mind and brain sciences. Issues such as differences between traditional and e-journal publishing, open archive initiatives, world-wide conventions, quality control, costs involved in e-journal publishing, and copyright questions will be addressed. Practical hints on how to self-archive, how to submit to the e-journal Psycolo-quy, how to create an open research archive, and where to find information relevant to e-publishing will be supplied.


   80.    Swan, A.,  "Open access self-archiving: An Introduction.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/1/jiscsum.pdf

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: This, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words, researchers publish to have an impact on their field. The vast majority of authors (81%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate.


   81.    Swan, A. and Brown, S.,  "Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17 (3). pp. 219-224.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2004. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11003/1/Authors_and_open_access_publishing.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autores/Investigadores

Resumen: Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of "self-archiving" wasless. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self-archived their traditional journal articles and almost twice as many say they would do so if required to.


   82.    Swan, A. and Brown, S.,  "Open access self-archiving: An author study.".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/1/jisc2.pdf

Descriptores: Autores/Investigadores/Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: This, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words, researchers publish to have an impact on their field.


   83.    Swan, A.,  "Author compliance with publisher open access embargoes: a study of the journal Nature Physics. (Unpublished)".  ECS EPrints Repository, 2007.

Descriptores: Revistas electrónicas /Autoarchivo /Libre acceso

Resumen: Until early 2005 the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) had a fully ’green’ policy on author self-archiving; that is,
authors were allowed to deposit their own versions of their articles in a digital repository immediately they were
peer-reviewed or published. Then the NPG revised that policy, introducing an embargo period of 6 months
after publication during which authors were not permitted to make their work openly accessible.Author compliance with publisher open access embargoes: a study of the journal Nature Physics. (Unpublished)


   84.    Swan, A.,  "Open access self-archiving: An Introduction".  Cogprints , 2005. http://cogprints.org/4406/

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo/Repositorios institucionales/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: This, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words, researchers publish to have an impact on their field. The vast majority of authors (81%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate.


   85.    Swan, A. and Brown, S.,  "Authors and open access publishing".  Cogprints, 2004, pp. 219-224. http://cogprints.org/4123/

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo/Revistas electrónicas /Libre acceso/Autores/Conducta

Resumen: Surveys were carried out to learn more about authors and open access publishing. Awareness of open access journals among those who had not published in them was quite high; awareness of "self-archiving" wasless. For open access journal authors the most important reason for publishing in that way was the principle of free access; their main concerns were grants and impact. Authors who had not published in an open access journal attributed that to unfamiliarity with such journals. Forty per cent of authors have self-archived their traditional journal articles


   86.    Swan, A. and Brown, S.,  "Open access self-archiving: An author study".  Cogprints, 2005. http://cogprints.org/4385/

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo/Impacto/Repositorios institucionales/Análisis de citas

Resumen: This, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words,


   87.    The Open Citation Project ,  "The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies".  The Open Citation Project , 2007. http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

Descriptores: Autoarchivo/Acceso abierto/Impacto/Indices de citas

Resumen: Despite significant growth in the number of research papers available through open access, principally through author self-archiving in institutional archives, it is estimated that only c. 20% of the number of papers published annually are open access. It is up to the authors of papers to change this. Why might open access be of benefit to authors? One universally important factor for all authors is impact, typically measured by the number of times a paper is cited (some older studies have estimated monetary returns to authors from article publication via the role citations play in determining salaries). Recent studies have begun to show that open access increases impact. More studies and more substantial investigations are needed to confirm the effect, although a simple example demonstrates the effect.


   88.    Xia, J.,  "Assessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories: Across Disciplines".  The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2007, pp. 647-654. http://zlf.fane.cn/science/article/B6W50-4R2XCSK-5/2/506ed46fa86dda04fc4c5c85caa718a4

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Acceso abierto/Mandato de autoarchivo

Resumen: This research examined self-archiving practices by four disciplines in seven institutional repositories. By checking each individual item for its metadata and deposition status, the research found that a disciplinary culture is not obviously presented. Rather, self-archiving is regulated by a liaison system and a mandate policy.


   89.    Xia, J. and Sun, L.,  "Factors to Assess Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories".  Serials Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2007, pp. 73-80. http://zlf.fane.cn/science/article/B6W63-4M877GK-1/2/d44244b0243290ee069665d72b5d9860

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo

Resumen: This paper proposes a group of factors that may be used to assess the success of open access self-archiving. It concentrates on self-archiving in institutional repositories. The authors emphasize the importance of examining content materials, particularly the availability of full text versus abstracts and the deposits archived by authors versus by others.


   90.    Xia, J. and Sun, L.,  "Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability".  Serials Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2007, pp. 14-21. http://zlf.fane.cn/science/article/B6W63-4MWPV76-1/2/3dc36052302a18a6fd8373bd838fe18b

Descriptores: Repositorios institucionales/Acceso abierto/Autoarchivo

Resumen: This research evaluates the success of open access self-archiving in several well-known institutional repositories. Two assessment factors have been applied to examine the current practice of self-archiving: depositorship and the availability of full text. This research discovers that the rate of author self-archiving is low and that the majority of documents have been deposited by a librarian or administrative staff. Similarly, the rate of full-text availability is relatively low, except for Australian repositories. By identifying different practices of self-archiving, repository managers can create new strategies for the operation of their repositories and the development of archiving policies.


   91.    Yiotis, K.,  "The Open Access Initiative: a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communications".  Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2005. http://www.lita.org/ala/lita/litapublications/ital/volume242005/number4december/contentv424/yiotis.pdf

Descriptores: Acceso abierto/Comunicación científica

Resumen: This paper gives an account of the origin and development of the Open Access Initiative (OAI) and the digital technology that enables its existence. The researcher explains the crisis in scholarly communications and how open access (OA) can reform the present system. OA has evolved two systems for delivering research articles: OA archives or repositories and OA journals. They differ in that OA journals conduct peer review and OA archives do not. Discussion focuses on how these two delivery systems work, including such topics as OAI, local institutional repositories, Eprints self-archiving software, cross-archives searching, metadata harvesting, and the individuals who invented OA and organizations that support it.




---------------------------------------------
Los archivos de mensajes de INFODOC se pueden consultar
en la direccio http://listas.bcl.jcyl.es
---------------------------------------------