Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal IUScholarWorks: Maximizing and Measuring Research Impact Through Open Access Mandates and Metrics Stevan Harnad University of Southampton, UK Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal What Is Open Access? Free, Immediate Permanent Full-Text On-Line Access

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Open Access: To What? ESSENTIAL: to all 2.5 million annual research articles published in all 24,000 peer- reviewed journals (or conferences) in all scholarly and scientific disciplines, worldwide OPTIONAL: (because these are not all author give-aways, written only for usage and impact) 1. Books 2. Textbooks 3. Magazine articles 4. Newspaper articles 5. Music 6. Video 7. Software 8. “Knowledge” (or because author’s choice to self-archive can only be encouraged, not required in all cases): 9. Data 10. Unrefereed Preprints

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Open Access: Why? To maximise:  Research visibility  Research usage  Research uptake  Research applications  Research impact  Research productivity  Research progress  Research funding By maximising Research access

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Open Access: How? Mandate the deposit of all institutional research article output In Institutional OAI- compliant Repositories (IRs)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Deposit what? The “postprint”: (The author’s final, accepted, revised peer-reviewed draft: no need for the publisher’s proprietary PDF.)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Deposit: Where? In the author’s own OAI-compliant Institutional Repository (IR)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Depsit: When? Immediately upon acceptance for publication

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal The only thing standing between us and 100% OA today is KEYSTROKES

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Refereed “Post-Print” Accepted, Certified, Published by Journal Impact cycle begins: Research is done Researchers write pre-refereeing “Pre-Print” Submitted to Journal Pre-Print reviewed by Peer Experts – “Peer- Review” Pre-Print revised by article’s Authors Researchers can access the Post-Print if their university has a subscription to the Journal Months New impact cycles: New research builds on existing research

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal New impact cycles : New research builds on existing research Researchers can access the Post-Print if their university has a subscription to the Journal Refereed “Post-Print” Accepted, Certified, Published by Journal Impact cycle begins : Research is done Researchers write pre-refereeing “Pre-Print” Submitted to Journal Pre-Print reviewed by Peer Experts – “Peer-Review” Pre-Print revised by article’s Authors Pre-Print is self- archived in University’s Eprint Archive Post-Print is self- archived in University’s Eprint Archive Months New impact cycles: Self-archived research impact is greater (and faster) because access is maximized (and accelerated)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Research Assessment, Research Funding, and Citation Impact “Correlation between RAE ratings and mean departmental citations (1996) (2001) (Psychology)” “ RAE and citation counting measure broadly the same thing ” “Citation counting is both more cost-effective and more transparent” (Eysenck & Smith 2002)

The G-factor International University Ranking measures the importance of universities as a function of the number of links to their websites from the websites of other leading international universities. Why is Southampton ranked 3rd highest in the UK and 25th in the world, above Columbia (27th) and Yale (51st)? Indiana U Indiana U is ranked 292 Copyright Peter Hirst, 2006.

Reasons for U. Southampton's High Webmetric Rank: (1) U. Southampton's university-wide research performance (2) U. Southampton's Electronics and Computer Science (ECS) Department's involvement in many high-profile web projects and activities (among them the semantic web work of the web's inventor, ECS Prof. Tim Berners-Lee, the Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) work of Prof. Nigel Shadbolt, and the pioneering web science contributions of Prof. Wendy Hall) (3) Since 2001 U. Southampton's ECS has had a mandate requiring that all of its research output be made Open Access on the web by depositing it in the ECS EPrints Repository, and that Southampton has a university-wide self-archiving policy (soon to become a mandate) too (4) Maximising access to research (by self-archiving it free for all on the web) maximises research usage and impact (and hence web impact) This all makes for an extremely strong Southampton web presence, as reflected in such metrics as the "G factor", which places Southampton 3rd in the UK and 25th among the world's top 300 universities or Webometrics,which places Southampton 6th in UK, 9th in Europe, and 80th among the top 3000 universities it indexes.G factor

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal “Online or Invisible?” (Lawrence 2001) “average of 336% more citations to online articles compared to offline articles published in the same venue” Lawrence, S. (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact Nature 411 (6837):

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Changing citation behaviour

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Time-Course and cycle of Citations (red) and Usage (hits, green) Witten, Edward (1998) String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 : Preprint or Postprint appears. 2. It is downloaded (and sometimes read). 3. Next, citations may follow (for more important papers)…. 4. This generates more downloads… 5. More citations...

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Usage Impact (downloads) is correlated with Citation Impact (Physics ArXiv: hep, astro, cond, quantum; math, comp) downloads from first 6 months after publication predict citations 2 years after publicattion (Quartiles Q1 (lo) - Q4 (hi)) All r=.27, n= Q1 (lo) r=.26, n=54832 Q2 r=.18, n=54832 Q3 r=.28, n=54832 Q4 (hi) r=.34, n=54832 hep r=.33, n=74020 Q1 (lo) r=.23, n=18505 Q2 r=.23, n=18505 Q3 r=.30, n=18505 Q4 (hi) r=.50, n=18505 (correlation is highest for high- citation papers/authors) Most papers are not cited at all Average UK downloads per paper: 10 (UK site only: 18 mirror sites in all)

gray By discipline: total articles (OA+NOA), gray curve; percentage OA: (OA/(OA+NOA)) articles, green bars; percentage OA citation advantage: ((OA-NOA)/NOA) citation, red bars, averaged across and ranked by total articles. All disciplines show an OA citation advantage (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005

By country: total articles (gray curve), percent OA articles (green bars), and percent OA citation advantage (red bars); averaged across all disciplines and years ; ranked by total articles. (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005

By year: total articles (gray curve), percent OA articles (green bars), and percent OA citation advantage (red bars): , averaged across all disciplines. No yearly trend is apparent in the size of the OA citation advantage, but %OA is growing from year to year. (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Figure 3a: The yearly percentage (OAc) of the articles with c citations (c = 0, 1 2-3, 4-7, 8-15, 16+) that are OA ( ). This graph should really be read backwards, as citations increase cumulatively as an article gets older (younger articles have fewer citations). Reading backwards, for articles with no citations (c=0), the percentage OAc decreases each year from , at first rapidly, then more slowly. For articles with one and more citations (c>0), OAc first increases rapidly from 2003 till about 1998, then decreases slowly Notice that the rank order becomes inverted around midway (c. 1998), the percentages increasing from c=0 to c=16+ for the oldest articles (1992) and the reverse for the youngest articles (2003). The pattern is almost identical for NOA articles too (see NOAc inset), so this is the relationship between citation ranges and time for all articles, not a specific OA effect. The OA effect only becomes apparent when we look at OAc/NOAc (Figure 3b) (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005 Figure 3b: The yearly ratio OA c /NOA c between the percentage of articles with c citations (c = 0, 1 2-3, 4-7, 8-15, 16 + ) that are OA and NOA (all disciplines). This ratio is increasing with time (as well as with higher citation counts, c), showing that the effect first reported for computer science conference papers by Lawrence (2001) occurs for all disciplines.

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal OA c /NOA c ratio (across all disciplines and years increases as citation count (c) increases (r =.98, N=6, p<.005). Percentage of articles is relatively higher among NOA articles with Citations = 0; it becomes higher among OA articles with citations = 1 or more. The more cited an article, the more likely that it is OA. (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal EA: Early Advantage: Permanent citation increment for preprint QA: Quality Advantage: Self-archiving citations; higher-quality articles benefit more UA: Usage Advantage: Self-archiving increases downloads; higher- quality articles benefit more (CA: Competitive Advantage): OA/non-OA advantage (disappears at 100% OA) (QB: Quality Bias): Higher-quality articles self-archive(d) more (disappears at 100%OA) OA advantage = EA + QA + UA + (CA) + (QB)

Self-Selected vs. Mandated Self-Archiving I: Non-Normalised Grand Aaverage Citation Ratios. S= articles self-archived at institutions with (Sm, 237 articles) and without (Sn, 890) a self- archiving mandate. N = citation counts for non-archived articles at institutions with (Nm, 16485) and without (Nn, 89156) mandate (i.e., Nm = articles not yet compliant with mandate).There is no indication that Sn ratios are greater than Sm ratios: rather the contrary. (NB: These averages are across fields and based on very different samples sizes. Following figure (II) compares like with like)

Self-Selected vs. Mandated Self-Archiving II: Within-Journal Citation Ratios. S = citation counts for articles self-archived at institutions with (Sm) and without (Sn) a self-archiving mandate. N = citation counts for non-archived articles at institutions with (Nm) and without (Nn) mandate (i.e., Nm = articles not yet compliant with mandate). Grand average S/O ( articles; 279 journals) is the OA advantage (18%); this is about the same as Sn/Nn (27972 articles, 48 journals); ratio is larger for Sm/Nm (57%, 541 articles, 20 journals). Sn/Sm = -27%, so self-selected self-archiving does not give more citations than mandated; rather the reverse.

1. article age 2. journal impact factor 3. number of authors 4. open access Multiple Regression Analysis reveals 4 independent influences on citation counts (overall, and in all subsets): 1. article age 2. journal impact factor 3. number of authors 4. open access Raw citation countsLog citation counts

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal And for individual scientists…. Diamond, A M (1986) What is a citation worth? J. Human Resources 21, 200 ( Marginal value of one citation is $ (depending on field and number of citations: an increase from 0 to 1 citation is worth more than from citations) Update for inflation (170%) = $ Convert to rupees = PKR Now let’s look at one Pakistan scientist’s situation….

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Lost citations, lost impact Only around 15% of research is Open Access…. ….. so 85% is not ….. and we are therefore losing 85% of the 50% increase in citations (conservative end of the range) that Open Access brings (= 42.5%)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal National economies UK scientists: 130,000 articles per year Number of citations: 761,600 If all had been OA, there would have been (42.5% more) 1,085,280 citations That’s 323,680 citations lost Since the UK Government invests £3.5 bn in S&T each year ….. This means lost impact worth £1.5 bn to the UK economy

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Measure usage and impact

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Metrics Citations (C) CiteRank Co-citations Downloads (D) C/D Correlations Hub/Authority index Chronometrics: Latency/Longevity Endogamy/Exogamy Semiometrics

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Compliance with a mandate Data from Key Perspectives Ltd

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal USA  NIH: Strengthening now very likely Require not request  CURES: 6-month delay to provide OA permitted but deposit must be at acceptance  FRPAA: Mandatory deposit: all research funded by the largest agencies

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal UK Wellcome Trust ($750m) Research Councils UK 5 out of 8 have a mandate and 1 has a strong encouragement

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Data courtesy of Arthur Sale University of Tasmania

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal University of Queensland Data courtesy of Arthur Sale

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Queensland University of Technology Data courtesy of Arthur Sale

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal What is needed for open access now: goldgreenUniversities: Adopt a university-wide policy of making all university research output open access (via either the gold or green strategy) Departments: Create and fill departmental OAI-compliant open-access archives University Libraries: Provide digital library support for research self-archiving and open-access archive- maintenance. Redirect 1/3 of any eventual toll-savings to cover open-access journal peer-review service charges

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal What is needed for open access now: Promotion Committees: Require a standardized online CV from all candidates, with refereed publications all linked to their full-texts in the open-access journal archives and/or departmental open-access archives gold greenResearch Funders: Mandate open access for all funded research (via either the gold or green strategy). Fund (fixed, fair) open-access journal peer-review service charges. Assess research and researcher impact online (from the online CVs) goldgreenPublishers: Become either gold or green

The G-factor International University Ranking measures the importance of universities as a function of the number of links to their websites from the websites of other leading international universities. Why is Southampton ranked 3rd highest in the UK and 25th in the world, above Columbia (27th) and Yale (51st)? Copyright Peter Hirst, 2006.

Reasons for U. Southampton's High Webmetric Rank: (1) U. Southampton's university-wide research performance (2) U. Southampton's Electronics and Computer Science (ECS) Department's involvement in many high-profile web projects and activities (among them the semantic web work of the web's inventor, ECS Prof. Tim Berners-Lee, the Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) work of Prof. Nigel Shadbolt, and the pioneering web science contributions of Prof. Wendy Hall) (3) Since 2001 U. Southampton's ECS has had a mandate requiring that all of its research output be made Open Access on the web by depositing it in the ECS EPrints Repository, and that Southampton has a university-wide self-archiving policy (soon to become a mandate) too (4) Maximising access to research (by self-archiving it free for all on the web) maximises research usage and impact (and hence web impact) This all makes for an extremely strong Southampton web presence, as reflected in such metrics as the "G factor", which places Southampton 3rd in the UK and 25th among the world's top 300 universities or Webometrics,which places Southampton 6th in UK, 9th in Europe, and 80th among the top 3000 universities it indexes.

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Only the 5th is relevant here Don’t conflate the different forms of institutional archiving: Only the 5th is relevant here 1.Institutional digital collection management 2.Institutional digital preservation 3.Institutional digital courseware 4.Institutional digital publishing 5.Institutional self-archiving of refereed research output

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal The only thing standing between us and 100% OA today is KEYSTROKES

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Open Access: How? Mandate the deposit of all institutional research article output In institutional OAI-compliant repositories

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Deposit what? The “postprint”: (The author’s final, accepted, revised peer-reviewed draft)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Deposit: Where? In the author’s own OAI-compliant Institutional Repository (IR)

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Deposit: When? Immediately upon acceptance for publication

Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal BOAI Self-Archiving FAQ "I-worry-about..." 32 FAQs (sub-grouped thematically) I. 10. CopyrightCopyright 32. Poisoned ApplePoisoned Apple II. 7. Peer reviewPeer review 5. CertificationCertification 6. Evaluationvaluation 22. Tenure/PromotionTenure/Promotion 13. CensorshipCensorship III. 29. Sitting PrettySitting Pretty 4. Navigation (info-glut)Navigation (info-glut) IV. 1. PreservationPreservation 2. AuthenticationAuthentication 3. CorruptionCorruption 23. Version controlVersion control 25. Mark-upMark-up 26. ClassificationClassification 16. GraphicsGraphics 15. ReadabilityReadability IV. 1. Preservation continued….Preservation 21. SerendipitySerendipity 18. Libraries'/Librarians' futureLibraries'/Librarians' future V. 19. Learned Societies' futureLearned Societies' future VI. 17. Publishers' futurePublishers' future 9. DownsizingDownsizing 8. Paying the piperPaying the piper 14. CapitalismCapitalism 24. NapsterNapster 31. Waiting for GoldWaiting for Gold VII. 20. University conspiracyUniversity conspiracy 30. Rechanneling toll-savingsRechanneling toll-savings 28. AffordabilityAffordability VIII. 12. PriorityPriority 27. SecrecySecrecy IX. 11. PlagiarismPlagiarism