[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu, AmSci Forum <american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.org>
- Subject: Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year
- From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:04:38 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote: Re: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/16/free_access_research/ > Am I alone in failing completely to understand the basis for Stevan's > calculation of the 1.5 bn? It seems to be (hypothetical (and as far as > I can follow, unexplained) figure) x (hypothetical figure) x > (hypothetical figure). Am I missing something? > > Perhaps someone could explain it to me nice and slow... Dear Sally, happy to oblige: (1) The UK spends �3.5 billion pounds annually on funding UK research: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4620.html (2) The return on that investment is not the number of UK articles published (130,000 per year) http://auth.athensams.net/?ath_dspid=ISI.PHL&ath_returl=http://isiknowledge.com/ (3) The return on that investment is the number of UK articles used, built-upon, cited: 761,600 citations per year: http://auth.athensams.net/?ath_dspid=ISI.PHL&ath_returl=http://isiknowledge.com/ (4) 15% of articles are self-archived worldwide, 85% are not: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm (5) Self-archived articles have 50%-250% more citations: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm (6) Hence, for 85% of its research output (�2.98 billion pounds worth) (7) the UK is losing 50-250% of the potential return on its investment: �1.49 - �7.44 billion pounds worth (8) To be conservative, I used only the lower end of this estimate of the UK's annual loss in potential return on it research investment: �1.5 billion pounds worth http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/29-guid.html In other words, the fiction is not in the figures I have cited on the RCUK investment in research and the empirical evidence for the loss of potential return on that investment http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html The fiction is all in Sally's own non-figures and non-evidence on publishers' loss of potential revenues as a result of self-archiving: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/20-guid.html Stevan Harnad
- Prev by Date: Blackwell Publishing Donates Textbooks to Ethiopian Medical Schools
- Next by Date: Blackwell Publishing Donates Textbooks to Ethiopian Medical Schools
- Previous by thread: Blackwell Publishing Donates Textbooks to Ethiopian Medical Schools
- Next by thread: Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year
- Index(es):