1. 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 12-18 Months New impact cycles: New research builds on existing research

2. 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 12-18 Months New impact cycles: Self-archived research impact is greater (and faster) because access is maximized (and accelerated)

3. 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): 521. http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/

4. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Lawrence (2001) findings for computer science conference papers. More OA every year for all citation levels; higher with higher citation levels

5. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Citation impact for articles in the same journal and year are consistently higher for articles that have been self-archived by their authors. (Below is a comparison for Astronomy articles that are and are not in ArXiv.)

6. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Citation impact

7. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Astrophysics General Physics HEP/Nuclear Physics Chemical Physics

8. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Changing citation behaviour

9. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal DATA: Michael Kurtz

10. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal DATA: Michael Kurtz

11. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal DATA: Michael Kurtz

12. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal DATA: Michael Kurtz

13. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Social Sciences Biological Sciences The citation impact advantage is found in all fields analyzed so far, including articles (self-archived in any kind of open-access website or archive) in social sciences (above right) biological sciences (below right) and all fields of Physics (self-archived in ArXiv, below). Note that the percentage of published articles that have been self-archived (green bars) varies from about 10-20%from field to field and that the size of the open-access citation impact advantage (red bars) varies from about 25% to over 300%, but it is always positive. http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html Signal detection analysis of the hit/miss rate of the algorithm that searched for full-text OA papers on the web: d’ = 2.45 (sensitivity) b =.52 (bias)

14. 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 1992-2003 and ranked by total articles. All disciplines show an OA citation advantage (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005

15. By country: total articles (gray curve), percent OA articles (green bars), and percent OA citation advantage (red bars); averaged across all disciplines and years 1992-2003; ranked by total articles. (Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005)Hajjem et al. IEEE DEB 2005

16. By year: total articles (gray curve), percent OA articles (green bars), and percent OA citation advantage (red bars): 1992-2003, 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

17. 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 (1992-2003). 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 2003-1992, 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 1998-1992. 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.

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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 (106203 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Research Assessment, Research Funding, and Citation Impact “Correlation between RAE ratings and mean departmental citations +0.91 (1996) +0.86 (2001) (Psychology)” “ RAE and citation counting measure broadly the same thing ” “Citation counting is both more cost-effective and more transparent” (Eysenck & Smith 2002) http://psyserver.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/citations.pdf

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

26. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Measure usage and impact

27. 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 : 253. 1. 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...

28. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal Usage Impact (downloads) is correlated with Citation Impact (Physics ArXiv: hep, astro, cond, quantum; math, comp) http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php downloads from first 6 months after publication predict citations 2 years after publicattion http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php (Quartiles Q1 (lo) - Q4 (hi)) All r=.27, n=219328 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)

29. 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

30. Stevan Harnad: Southampton and Montreal http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ BOAI Self-Archiving FAQ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://www.eprints.org/self-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