Re: Open access and impact factor

["Harriet Schick" <HSchick@engenderhealth.org>]

Hello - I basically lurk and read the posts -- however your argument seems
right on target to me...and basic.  If the value of peer review and impact
are quality and a measure of citation analysis, how can you compare 2
items that discuss the same topic one freely accessible (and possibly not
peer reviewed)  --- that can be hit by anyone, with one that is being
accessed by the community intended, and thus more likely to have an
"impact?"

Harriet Schick, MSLS, AHIP
Head Librarian
EngenderHealth
440 Ninth Avenue
New York, NY  10001
Tel: 212.561.8040        Fax: 212.561.8068
Hschick@engenderhealth.org
www.engenderhealth.org


>>> rickand@unr.edu 3/9/2004 5:47:42 PM >>>

Every time someone uses "enhanced impact factor" as an argument for open
access, a tiny little bell goes off in the back of my head, and this
morning I finally figured out why.  Stop me if this is a naive question or
if I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the argument, but it seems to me
that the purpose of impact factor data is to measure the importance of one
article relative to others.  If the article's impact factor is enhanced by
its free availability to the public (rather than by its intrinsic merits
or its impact on the thinking and research of others), then isn't open
access simply making the impact-factor data less meaningful?

In other words, given two articles of equal merit and potential influence,
one of which is freely available to the public and the other of which is
only available to those who pay, wouldn't we expect that the impact of the
former would be higher than that of the latter?  And if so, how is the
difference between those two impact factors meaningful or useful?

-------------
Rick Anderson
rickand@unr.edu