Hi,
Just back from holiday so thought I would pitch in with some (admittedly rough and ready) figures from our repository here at Stirling - STORRE (
http://storre.stir.ac.uk).
Note: This analysis is in no way rigorous or scientific, but hopefully some of the numbers shed some light on usage and behaviour with respect to the "Request a copy" functionality here at Stirling :-)
We are using DSpace and added an embargo facility along with the "Request a copy" functionality back in June 2007 (originally to support our eTheses mandate and enable us to handle eTheses which were un-officially embargoed whilst the author prepared articles etc for publication, but obviously now enabling us to support our "Immediate Deposit/Optional Access" mandate for Journal Articles which has been in effect since September 2008).
The majority of content in STORRE has been added since Sept 08, so the usage figures for the "request a copy" functionality prior to that are fairly negligible, so, along with figures on the totals since June 2007, I've also provided figures for the second half of 2008 and the first half of 2009 to give some indication on how usage has grown relative to total content.
=======================================================================
Total number of items in STORRE on 28th July 2009: 1276
Total number of embargoed items in STORRE on 28th July 2009: 416 (33%)
Total since June 2007 (to 28th July 2009)
---------------------
Total requests: 397
Requests accepted: 206 52%
Requests rejected: 15 4%
No response: 176 44%
Second half of 2008 (01/07/08 - 31/12/08)
-------------------
No. of items in STORRE at start of period: 281
No. of items in STORRE at end of period: 512
Total requests: 82
Requests accepted: 36 44%
Requests rejected: 6 7%
No response: 40 49%
First half of 2009 (01/01/09 - 30/06/09)
------------------
No. of items in STORRE at start of period: 512
No. of items in STORRE at end of period: 1202
Total requests: 247
Requests accepted: 131 53%
Requests rejected: 7 3%
No response: 109 43%
So from that one *might* generalise that just over a half of requests are currently being accepted, a small number are rejected, and just under half get no response.
With respect to the "no responses", one factor will be embargoed PhD theses. Submitting PhD students log on to STORRE using their University network credentials (STORRE then automatically creates an account for them, determines they are a PhD student and what department they are from, and provides them with appropriate deposit permissions). This "auto-created" account is based on their University email address, and this email account only remains live for a short while after the student leaves the University (which they generally do once they've completed their PhD!) - this means that many requests for embargoed eTheses will probably be going into a black hole. I have created a facility to enable us to specify a different email address for the request to go to, but we, or the user, generally need to be aware of the problem before an email address is updated - looking for a better solution to this issue is on my "to do" list :-)
It would be interesting to investigate these "no responses" further (how many are eTheses, how many are deliberately ignored, and why etc), but time doesn't allow for that at the moment . . .
Once I had generated the figures for the first half of 2009, I was interested to see if the data was uniform across this period, so I also did a breakdown of the figures for each month, and I also include these here for info/interest/completeness.
These suggest that the "no response" rates are higher during semester breaks (we start mid February) - presumably because less staff are around to respond to them, but this is just supposition . . . Or perhaps these figures suggest that the general trend for the "no response" rate is downwards, indicating that staff are becoming more familiar with this facility . . . ?
January 2009
------------
Total requests: 18
Requests accepted: 4 22%
Requests rejected: 0 0%
No response: 14 78%
February 2009
-------------
Total requests: 23
Requests accepted: 8 35%
Requests rejected: 2 8.5%
No response: 13 56.5%
March 2009
----------
Total requests: 44
Requests accepted: 29 66%
Requests rejected: 0 0%
No response: 15 34%
April 2009
----------
Total requests: 51
Requests accepted: 32 63%
Requests rejected: 1 2%
No response: 18 35%
May 2009
--------
Total requests: 66
Requests accepted: 30 45.5%
Requests rejected: 0 0%
No response: 36 54.5%
June 2009
---------
Total requests: 45
Requests accepted: 28 62%
Requests rejected: 4 9%
No response: 13 29%
If I had the time, it would be interesting to dig a little deeper into these figures, and the human factors behind them, but that'll have to wait for the time being! Definitely a little advocacy on responding to these requests wouldn't go amiss though, so, maybe now that I've seen these figures, this is something we'll try to raise awareness of internally - it would be good to run this analysis again in a year's time and see a much better response rate :-).
And to address the original poster's concerns:
> In the handful of times I've used such a button, I have gotten either
> no response or have been declined.
From the data it would seem that you won't be alone in this experience, and, certainly with regard to STORRE, your best bet is to make these requests during term time ;-). Seriously though, I think/hope that as academics get more accustomed to using this facility, response rates will improve (and possibly already are).
Status: O
Message-ID: <dummy7753817127_at_invented.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
This has been a useful/interesting exercise for me (thanks for asking the question!), and I hope the above is of some use/interest to others.
Regards,
Mike
Joint STORRE Manager
Michael White
eLearning Developer
Centre for eLearning Development (CeLD)
3V3a, Cottrell
University of Stirling
Stirling SCOTLAND
FK9 4LA
Email: michael.white_at_stir.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 1786 466877
Fax: +44 (0) 1786 466880
http://www.is.stir.ac.uk/celd/
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 20 July 2009 00:26
To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Eprint request button - data on effectiveness
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Gavin Baker wrote:
> Dr. Harnad,
>
> I know you are an advocate for the "eprint request button" for
> repositories. Do you know of any studies or data on how widespread use
> of these buttons is, and how frequently such requests are granted?
>
> In the handful of times I've used such a button, I have gotten either
> no response or have been declined.
Dear Gavin,
Apologies for the delay in responding.
I don't have any data yet. I've branched your query to the EPrints and DSpace lists. Perhaps someone may already have some data.
My guess is that it is too early for informative stats. The instances are too few; the practice is not yet widesread enough, so authors are really not entirely clear on what they are doing. (Neither are most IR
managers.)
However, I thin this will be changing, as more deposit mandates are adopted, and the logic of the ID/OA Mandate (Immediate Deposit, Optional
Access: Either immediate OA, or Closed Access plus Button) becomes better understood. Then IRs will clearly inform their authors about best practice, and both the IDOA Mandate and the Button will at last come into their own.
Although OA and OA policy are in fact very simple and straightforward, they are apparently novel enough, relative to what authors have been doing for decades, that it takes more time than one (and certainly I!) might have expected for the message to get through, and understood, and put into practice.
Or so I am told, anyway, by those who keep advising me to be patient!
Best wishes,
Stevan
> --
> Gavin Baker
> http://www.gavinbaker.com/
--
Academic Excellence at the Heart of Scotland.
The University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland,
number SC 011159.
Received on Tue Jul 28 2009 - 16:02:41 BST