OA and impressive impact factors - non propter hoc

["Mcsean, Tony (ELS)" <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com>]

To assess the full significance of improved impact factors (IFs) for many
BMC titles, and in particular to assess the open access factor, we need to
put the BMC results into context with those of the major
subscription-based publishers. Elsevier's research staff has analysed the
figures and come up with the following results:

Of the BMC journals that have IFs for 2004 and 2003, 60% have increased
and 40% declined (in actual numbers of journals - of those that had IFs in
2003, 11 increased and six declined.

The equivalent results for Elsevier, Wiley, OUP and AIP show:

	Elsevier:  64% increased IF, 36% decreased IF 
	Wiley:     58% increased IF, 42% decreased IF 
	OUP:       64% increased IF, 36% decreased IF 
	AIP:       65% increased IF, 35% decreased IF

In addition, not all of the content of BMC journals is based on the
author-pays open access model but is available on a traditional
subscription basis. The Review, Viewpoint and Commentary articles of some
journals fall into these categories. Typically these article types
accumulate more citations then standard research papers (see:
http://www.elsevier.com/framework_editors/pdfs/Perspectives1.pdf).

For example, between 50% and 65% of the content of Arthritis Research &
Therapy, Critical Care, and Breast Cancer Research is made up of review,
viewpoint or commentary articles. These subscription-based articles,
particularly review papers, account for a larger proportion of the IF of
these journals then do the author-pays open access research papers.

This comparison with four major STM publishers demonstrates that BMC's
overall IF results are unremarkable, and that they certainly do not
provide evidence to support the common assertion that the open access
publishing model increases impact factor scores.

Tony McSe�n
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier
+44 7795 960516
+44 1865 843630