[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Open Access and For-Pay Access (to the same IR materials)

I do not consider a group of journals that, on average, rank at the 39th
percentile, "similar" to journals in general (the 50th percentile). In
most areas of research or human activity, an 11 point different is quite
significant indeed. (I would be very pleased if my times in 5K races rose
from the 39th percentile, where they are on a good day, to the 50th

That's not to say that there aren't excellent OA journals (though it is
interesting to note that there is not one OA journal above in the 90th
percentile of Life Sciences, Physics, of Chemistry--fields where OA has a
longer track record than in medicine--and only one each in those
categories above the 80th percentile).

These are interesting preliminary data--with the operative word being
"preliminary." OA journals are too new to make any grand conclusions one
way or the other about their quality, citation indices, or long-term
influence on scientific research.

Peter Banks
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu 4/30/2005 7:00:13 AM >>>
Open Access means sloppy publications?

"The impact factors of nearly 200 open-access journals are similar to
those of traditional journals in the same fields, according to a recent
Thomson ISI report. The 58 open-access medical journals that receive
impact factors fell, on average, at the 40th percentile of all medical
journals, with all but 11 ranking higher than the 10th percentile. For
life sciences journals, the 37 open-access journals were ranked, on
average, at the 39th percentile."


Open Access is treasonous?
Does the Attorney General know this?

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
1300 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021