Re: Alma Swan on "Reasons researchers really rate repositories"

From: Heather Morrison <heatherm_at_ELN.BC.CA>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:30:47 -0800

    [ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

hi Sally,

A preprint on a topic like this would be most welcome in E-LIS, the Open
Archive for Library and Information Studies. It only takes a few keystrokes
to deposit yourself, or a member of the E-LIS team would be delighted to

Thorough understanding of the import of a research study requires a careful
read of the methodology, survey questions etc.


[Disclosure: I am a member of the E-LIS Governance Team].

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does
not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or
Simon Fraser University Library.

Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics

On 4-Nov-08, at 9:54 AM, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote:

I can?t help thinking that only looking for positive evidence is not very

Earlier this year I conducted a survey of members of UK learned societies in
the biological sciences. I had 1368 valid responses, and less than half of
those respondents knew what self-archiving was; 36% thought it was a good
idea and 50% were unsure. Just under half said they used repositories of
self-archived articles, but 13% of the sources they named were not in fact
self-archiving repositories. 29% said they self-archived their own
articles, but once again 10% of the sites where they said they did so were
not in fact publicly accessible sites of any kind. The access and
convenience of self-archiving repositories were seen as positive, but there
were concerns about quality control, workload for authors and institutions,
chaotic proliferation of versions, and potential damage to existing
journals, publishers and societies.

Interestingly, although there was still a significant level of
misunderstanding, the respondents were much more positive about OA
publication ? most of them said they supported the idea of OA journals. 60%
said that they read OA journals and 25% that they published in them, but in
both cases around 1/3 of the journals named were not OA. While many were in
favour of increased access through OA journals, concerns were expressed
about the cost to authors, possible reduction in quality, and negative
impact on existing journals, publishers and societies.

I hope to publish an article on the findings early next year.


PS I really don?t want to hear why anyone on this list thinks the
respondents were wrong ? I?m just reporting facts!

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-
Sent: 03 November 2008 11:42
Subject: Alma Swan on "Reasons researchers really rate repositories"

Les Carr has posted a call:
Looking for Evidence of Researcher Engagement with Repositories
"a collection of success stories - anecdotes of how repositories have
been able to improve the lot of researchers - for appealing to
institutional repository nay-sayers and open access agnostics"
and the redoubtable Alma Swan has, as always, responded with data, posting:
Reasons researchers really rate repositories
Received on Tue Nov 04 2008 - 23:38:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:34 GMT