[open-science] clarification on effectiveness of mandates

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Many thanks,
I have put these ideas out for discussion, not as scripture.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> What is your context for this bit?
>
>>
>>    - [data] Mandates are a blunt weapon and so far have little
>>    effectiveness
>>
>>
OK - I will rephrase that.
 [data] Mandates are a blunt weapon and so far have partial effectiveness

Compliance with (say) Wellcome mandates for Open Access full text is
probably about 60%. (The figure is not known). MRC is probably less in my
small experience. There are few University mandates that seem to be
enforced - I'd be surprised if 10% of UK universities had effective OA
mandates for fulltext.

>
>>
>> Do you mean the most common mandates -- "you should make your data
> available" without any specifics or teeth -- or do you include mandates
> that require evidence of a permanent archive URL prior to article
> publication or end-of-grant funding?
>
> There is evidence of effectiveness of the latter (data into Genbank, PDB,
> GEO, etc).
>
>
PDB and Genbank have worked because the community require it, not the
funders. I wouldn't call that a mandate in the current political sense.

But I've put these ideas out for community revision - they are starting
points


> Heather
>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20120402/9359936f/attachment-0001.html>