RE: More on Open Access citations

["Morgan, Cliff - Chichester" <cmorgan@wiley.com>]

There is an explanation - accessors who cite are a subset of all 
accessors. They will be researchers working in the same field. 
Access has not generally been a problem for them - if you are 
working in a subject area to such an extent that you are writing 
papers and citing other work in that field, chances are that you 
already had access.

So if access has improved for "accessors who don't cite" and 
stayed the same for "accessors who do cite", that would explain 
the disconnect.

Cliff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu 
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David 
Prosser
Sent: 10 February 2011 02:20
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: More on Open Access citations

The absolutely fascinating thing about the paper by Mark McCabe 
and Chris Snyder is that it appears to show that there is, in 
general, no citation advantage accruing to online content.  Not 
just to online, open access content, but to any online content. 
Phil makes this clear in the title of his blog post, and it is 
only here that the subject is narrowed somewhat to only open 
access citations.

If McCabe and Snyder are right then the widening of access 
through big deals, third-party intermediates, and open access has 
made no difference to citation rates.  Are access and citations 
so disconnected that an increase in one has no effect on the 
other?   Is it really the case that none of the business models 
for online access have increased citations?  Intriguing.

(There is a JSTOR twist in the results; read the paper for 
details.)

David