Re: Open access and impact factor

[martin@skmassociates.net]

It seems to me that the dilution of the impact factor is not as
significant as these postings have suggested.  Yes, it's probably quite
true that freely available material is 'hit' much more frequently.  
However, as Ms. Schick suggests, the community that really cares about the
information - and is therefore likely to cite works considered valuable to
the field - is precisely the community that would read these publications
whether they are open access or not.

So I suggest that while there may be some diminution of the impact factor,
it may not be significant.  On the other hand, I haven't done any research
to prove my hypothesis one way or the other, and would be interested to
hear if anyone agrees with this approach to the question.

Sue Martin
President, SKM Associates, Inc.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:26:22 EST, "Harriet Schick" wrote:

> 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 possibly not peer reviewed)  --- that can be hit by anyone, with one 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