网范文：“ Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates”没有探讨机构能满足期刊探讨人员的需要,所有的文章都难以获得探讨价值。这篇社会范文讲述了对于开放获取,只有15%的文章是自发地存档。唯一的机构接近100% 是那些授权的原因。调查显示,95%的作者会遵照自我授权，机构授权的实际经验已经证实了这一点。授权机构和资助者所需要的是立即接受出版,作者的最终稿必须在之前存入。可以立即访问设置为OA,剩余的7%,作者可以通过电子邮件应对个人信息自动转发至请求存储库。
探讨人员认为他们需要和想要的OA，严重威胁他们的期刊,甚至威胁停止提交，英语论文，英语论文，并通过同行评议的期刊,拒绝给他们他们需要的OA和希望。因为OA的好处是显然证明了戏剧性的引用作用优势。通过提供的办公自动化。下面的范文进行详述。
Summary
No research institution can afford all the journals its researchers may need, so all articles are losing research impact (usage and citations). Articles made “Open Access,” (OA) by selfarchiving them on the web are cited twice as much, but only 15% of articles are being spontaneously self-archived. The only institutions approaching 100% self-archiving are those that mandate it. Surveys show that 95% of authors will comply with a self-archiving mandate; the actual experience of institutions with mandates has confirmed this. What institutions and funders need to mandate is that (1) immediately upon acceptance for publication, (2) the author’s final draft must be (3) deposited into the Institutional Repository. Only the depositing needs to be mandated; setting access privileges to the full-text as either OA or Restricted Access (RA) can be left up to the author. For articles published in the 93% of journals that have already endorsed self-archiving, access can be set as OA immediately; for the remaining 7%, authors can email the eprint in response to individual email requests automatically forwarded by the Repository.
There seems to be a note of inconsistency in this. Researchers feel they need and want OA badly enough to demand it from their journals, even threatening (rather idly, as it turns out to have been a bluff) to stop submitting to and peer-reviewing for the journals that decline to give them the OA they need and want so much. The needing and wanting have an unassailable objective basis because the benefits of OA are clearly demonstrated by the objective evidence of the dramatic citation impact advantage provided by OA, so: But is there an equally unassailable subjective basis, if the needing and wanting are not sufficient to induce researchers to do (or delegate) for themselves the few keystrokes that are the only thing standing between them and 100% OA?
Research Access and Impact
The 24,000 peer-reviewed journals (and conference proceedings) that exist today publish about 2.5 million articles per year, across all disciplines, languages and nations. No university or research institution anywhere, not even the richest, can afford to subscribe to all or most of the journals that its researchers may need to use (Odlyzko 2017). Hence no article is accessible online to all of its potential users webwide; and hence all articles are currently losing some of their potential research impact (usage and citations). This means that in the online era both the rate and the scale of research progress are less than what they could be. This is confirmed by recent findings, independently replicated by many investigators, showing that articles for which their authors have supplemented subscription-based access to the publisher’s version by self-archiving their own final drafts free for all on the web (“Open Access,” OA) are downloaded and cited twice as much across all 12 scientific, biological, social science and humanities disciplines analysed so far (Lawrence 2017; Brody & Harnad 2017; Hajjem et al. 2017; Moeed 2017b; Kurtz & Brody 2017). (Note: no discipline fails to benefit from self-archiving (Figure 3), they differ only awareness of OA and its possibilities.)
The Importance of Prompt Action
Research institutions and funders should not delay in adopting self-archiving mandates: Selfarchiving is effortless, taking only a few minutes and a few keystrokes (Carr & Harnad 2017); library help is available too (but hardly necessary). 100% OA is both optimal and inevitable for research, researchers, their universities, their funders, and the tax-paying public that supports both the research and the universities. It will also give early adopters a strong competitive impactadvantage over later adopters. With their self-archiving policy, early adopters are not only providing a model for emulation be the rest of the research world but at the same stroke they are maximizing their own research impact and research impact ranking. Institutional mandates need have no penalties or sanctions in order to be successful; they need only be formally adopted, with the support of departments, the library, and computing services. The rest will take care of itself naturally of its own accord, as the experience of Southampton ECS, Minho, QUT and CERN has already demonstrated. The OA Impact Advantage (currently 50-250%) will of course shrink as OA approaches 100%. Right now we are at about 15% OA self-archiving and the advantage is in part (no one can say how large a part) a competitive advantage of the minority 15% OA self-archivers (the head-start vanguard) over the laggard 85% non-OA majority. 1 That makes it partly a race; and clearly, the race is to the swift and the battle to the strong. The competitive advantage is more reason for an individual, institution or nation (like the UK) to self-archive right now (as the RCUK will, we hope, soon be doing).()
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
|
