1 of 14

I hate SHERPA-RoMEO

2 of 14

1.

The name is bad

2

3 of 14

2.

The data is bad

3

4 of 14

What SHERPA-RoMEO reports

5 of 14

What does ‘green’ open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies

Elizabeth Gadd, Denise Troll Covey

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 2016

https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616657406

5

6 of 14

“While the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the 12 years [2004-2015]…

6

Gadd, E., & Troll Covey, D. (2016).

‘’

7 of 14

“… the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively.”

7

Gadd, E., & Troll Covey, D. (2016).

‘’

8 of 14

Scoping

Two previous versions of SHERPA, where ISSN was included in URL, Wayback Machine
No longer the case with the “new” site
Decided on looking at journals we publish in, rather than trying to define “Canadian”
Looking at years 2017-2022 (post-TriAgency Policy)

9 of 14

Results for our Top 25 Journals

Archived versions for only 10 (40%)
2017 versions for only 3 (12%)

10 of 14

JISC

… do not keep data on changes.

11 of 14

3.

The interface is bad, and also the data is bad

11

12 of 14

Case in Point: Physical Reviews D

SHERPA’s stupid “pathways”:

https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/32263

Physical Reviews D: https://journals.aps.org/prd/about

13 of 14

SHERPA

13

14 of 14

SITE

14