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: Remedios Melero <rmelero AT iata.csic.es>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:59:30 +0200


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

Thanks Steve for your comments,

I will be very briefly now because I have to leave, however if you read 
how the weight have been calculated, and the variables within the model, 
you will  realise that this approach  has been prepared for any kind of 
instituttion, funder or univ... that means some questions are valid not 
for any of them and that has been taken into account in the formula to 
calculate the percentage.

About colors, we could modify them, but that is not the issue, I will  
make clear any other question early tomorrow. In any case the aim of  
MELIBEA is to foster OA policies not to confuse people, therefore any 
suggestion to improve it will be considered, analysed and applied .
Reme







El 15/07/2010 11:22, Steve Hitchcock escribió:
> 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
>    

        
--      
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 .