Re: Open access and impact factor

[Brian Simboli <brs4@lehigh.edu>]

Nicely put.

I'm not so sure however about the following assumption:

"Both he and I expect that, assuming equal interest and quality, this will
translate into a wider actual readership, a greater use, and more frequent
citation."

Arguably some science sub-disciplines are so tightknit that (almost)
everyone within them finds /some/ way of getting a paper, reading it, and
then putting it into citations. Open access would make this process
easier, but to a great extent an important research article will make the
rounds regardless whether open access is available.

I recognize that your point may hold, at the margin.

Brian Simboli
Lehigh Univ

==

David Goodman wrote:

>Impact factor does not measure the importance of an article. Impact factor
>does apply to articles, but only to journals. The impact factor of a
>journal is the citations to the journal during the previous 2 years,
>divided by the number of articles published in the journal during that
>period. It measures not precisely the importance of a journal, but the
>rate of citation of the average article in the journal during the yearts
>after publication. It thus serves as an approximation to the immediate
>importance of a journal, as compared to other journals of the same type in
>the same subject. (Citation patterns differ for different types of
>journal--e.g. reviews, newletters, etc., and of course for different
>subjects.) Thwre is much about a journal that impact factor does not
>measure, including the long-term citation frequency of its articles, or
>their use in other manner than citation, such as for student papers.
>
>But Rick's discussion does hold if one is considering an open access
>journal as compared to a similar conventional journal. During the period
>when both types coexist, the open access journals will indeed have a wider
>potential readership. Both he and I expect that, assuming equal interest
>and quality, this will translate into a wider actual readership, a greater
>use, and more frequent citation.  I consider this the strongest and most
>basic argument for open access--it will permit more people to use the
>journal. It also demonstrates why equivalent conventional and open access
>journals in the same subject are unlikely to coexist: the conventional
>journal will be at a disadvantage.
>
>Alternatively, if one thinks that the current system meets all potential
>needs, then one would not expect this effect, because everyone who would
>cite the journal is already able to access it, and is effectively doing
>so.  It's this differing prediction that makes the question interesting.
>
>David Goodman
>dgoodman@liu.edu