Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: OA policies and their "weight"

From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:22:30 +0100


Threading: [BOAI] OA policies and their "weight" from rmelero AT iata.csic.es
      • This Message

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:  openaccess@soros.org .