Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: OA policies and their "weight"
From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Reme, Thank you for bringing this new service to our attention. OA policies ↵ are vitally important to the development of institutional repositories, and ↵ services that can highlight and bring attention to this development can be ↵ valuable. There are a few aspects of the validation aspects of the new MELIBEA service ↵ that confuse, and possibly trouble, me. The first is the main indicator, ↵ %OAval, which is the most visible result for a policy. What do you expect this ↵ will tell people about a given policy? I randomly selected a couple of ↵ policies, one of which was for my own school, to find they each scored about ↵ 50%. I would expect these to be among the leaders in terms of OA policies, so ↵ this seems a surprisingly unhelpful score. So what's the explanation? Note that the objects being evaluated are ↵ institutional OA policies; they are effectively being presented in relation to ↵ institutional repositories when the policy specifies where to archive is an IR ↵ with a URL. It seems that the scores include ratings for OA publication policy, ↵ libre vs gratis OA, publisher pdf, sanctions (score if Yes), incentives (score ↵ if Yes), etc., some of which an institution might specify but which might not ↵ apply to an IR http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php. ↵ However you weight these factors they are still contributors to the overall ↵ score, so a policy that is specific to an IR is immediately handicapped, or ↵ appears to be unless there is more context to understand the scores. Which leads me to another question on the visualisation of the validator, and ↵ its use of green, gold (and red) in the meter. Do the green and gold refer the ↵ the classic OA colours? This would be quite convenient, since it would appear ↵ that the green repository policies I mentioned above are achieving almost full ↵ scores in the green zone of the meter. However, I suspect this cannot be the ↵ case, because it would assume that institutions must have a green AND gold ↵ policy, but not simply gold (whatever argument could be put for that). It is important that new services should help reveal and promote OA policies, ↵ as you seek to do, but at the same time not to prejudice the development of ↵ such policies by mixing and not fairly separating the contributing factors, ↵ especially where these relate to different types of OA. Steve Hitchcock IAM Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh94r AT ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865 On 15 Jul 2010, at 08:14, Remedios Melero wrote: > Good mornig! > In the last Open Repositories Conference which was held last week in ↵ Madrid (http://or2010.fecyt.es/publico/Home/index.aspx ) was presented in the ↵ poster session the project called MELIBEA. > MELIBEA (http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/) is a directory and a ↵ validator of institutional open-access (OA) policies regarding scientific and ↵ academic work. As a directory, it describes the existing policies. As a ↵ validator, it subjects them to qualitative and quantitative analysis based on ↵ fulfilment of a set of indicators ( ↵ http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php) that reflect ↵ the bases of an institutional policy. > > Based on the values assigned to a set of indicators, weighted according to ↵ their importance, the validator indicates a score and a percentage of ↵ fulfilment for each policy analyzed. The sum of weighted values of each ↵ indicator is converted to a percentage scale to give what we have called the ↵ “validated open-access percentage” (see how i t is calculated: ↵ http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/default.php?contenido=acerca ). > > The types of institution analyzed include universities, research centres, ↵ funding agencies and governmental organizations. > > MELIBEA has three main objectives: > > • 1. To establish indicators that reveal the strong and weak points of ↵ institutional OA polices. > • 2. To propose a methodology to guide institutions when they are drawing ↵ up an institutional OA policy. > • 3. To offer a tool for comparing the contents of policies between ↵ institutions. > The aim is not to be a ranking, but to offer a tool where to aanlyse and ↵ visualize the weaknesses or strenghts of an institutional OA policy based on ↵ its wording. It seems something trivial but accomplishment of a policy is ↵ based on its terms. > Please if you detect any mistake or you would like to make a comment, ↵ contact me. I will be pleased if you could check your policy, if any, to ↵ analyse our approach. > Best wishes > Reme > > > R. Melero > IATA, CSIC > Avda Agustín Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna (Valencia), Spain > TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01 > E-mail rmelero AT iata.csic.es > http://www.accesoabierto.net > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f Steve Hitchcock IAM Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh94r AT ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865 -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .