Re: Surveys, self-archiving, and what authors want to do

[cmorgan@wiley.co.uk]

Alma Swan may claim that the survey is rigorous and meaningful, but its
objectivity is rather undermined by the following introductory sentence:

"Studies show that open access increases the impact of - and number of
citations to - work made accessible in this way."

Even if we set aside the contentiousness of the statement, it surely has
no place in an introduction to an objective survey of authors' attitudes
since it is leading the witness.

If you are asking for someone's opinion about something, surely you don't
start off by making any claims as to the positive (or negative) aspects of
the issue that you are surveying?

Cliff Morgan

Chair, Serial Publishers Executive
Academic and Professional Division of the Publishers Association

___
Alma Swan wrote:

<snip>

2. Professor Watkinson's phraseology implies that KPL has carried out
numerous surveys of dubious merit. In fact, KPL has only published the
results of ONE survey on open access so far, which was indeed based on a
small sample, but a valid one, and I would hope its merit is considerable.
However, for information, I am now analysing the results of a new,
current, survey on self-archiving that we have conducted, and which has a
sample of more than 1200. The report will be published in the spring.

3. Our new, bigger-sample survey shows that the percentage of academics
who would willingly self-archive if required to do so by their employers
or funders is greater than previously found.

<snip>