Re: More on Open Access citations

[Philip Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

We should not forget that while free/open access may not increase 
citations, it does appear to increase readership from a wider 
group of potential readers [1, 2]. In trying to demonstrate 
increased dissemination, we may have simply gotten lost chasing 
the wrong metric. I'm a firm believer in the self-correcting 
nature of science.

1. Davis PM, Lewenstein BV, Simon DH, Booth JG, Connolly MJL. 
Open access publishing, article downloads and citations: 
randomised trial. /BMJ /2008;337:a568. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a568.

2. Davis PM. Does Open Access Lead to Increased Readership and 
Citations? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Articles Published in 
APS Journals. /The Physiologist/ 2010;53(6):197-201. 
http://j.mp/hVtXLa

-Phil

Morgan, Cliff - Chichester wrote:

> 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