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

Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year

The problem lies with Stevan's 50% figure - apparently picked out of the
air, and with no factual basis whatsoever - for the increased 'return on
investment' if research is OA. I don't find it very convincing to base
such sweeping conclusions on a completely unsupported figure

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Peter Banks wrote:


No, you are not missing something, Sally. The reporter who covered this
so uncritically and without analysis was the one missing something.

I am afraid that Peter Banks has either not read or has not quite
understood what I (as opposed to the reporter) actually wrote:
   http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html


I am not trained as an economist, but Professor Harnad's analysis seems
based on so many untested assumptions and leaps of logic that I am not
sure what we can draw from it.

In particular, the work of Diamond which Harnad uses to set the value of
a citation was meant to quantify the value of a citation to the earnings
of a professor, not the value to society. I am not sure how Harnad makes
the jump from individual to collective benefit.

But Banks is quite right about Diamond's data. And in my own article I
make that point quite explicit: The Diamond calculation is a separate
calculation, based on the value of the citation to the earnings of the
professor, not to society:

   "Self-archiving, as noted, increases citations by 50-250%...
   the most conservative... of these estimates (50% citation increase
   from self-archiving at �46 per citation)...  translates into an
   annual loss of �2, 541, 500 in revenue to UK researchers"

But then I also go on to say:

   "But this [50-250%] impact loss translates into a far bigger one
   for the British public, if we reckon it as the loss of potential
   returns on its research investment. As a proportion of the RCUK's
   yearly �3.5bn research expenditure (yielding 130,000 articles x 5.6 =
   761,600 citations), our conservative estimate would be a 50% x 85%
   x �3.5.bn = �1.5bn worth of loss in potential research impact (323,680
   potential citations lost). And that is without even considering the
   wider loss in revenue from potential practical applications and usage
   of UK research findings in the UK and worldwide, nor the still more
   general loss to the progress of human inquiry."

So the Diamond estimate did not even enter into my estimate of the UK's
�1.5bn worth of loss in potential research impact.


Moreover, Harnad seems to make the assumption that the 85% of research
that is not self-archived is unavailable for citation. In the field of
diabetes, this is clearly not the case. Of the most cited journals in
diabetes (Diabetes, Diabetes Care, J Clin Endo Metab, and Diabetologia),
the first three make virtually all accepted papers quickly available.
ADA enables any author to post accepted manuscripts in institutional
archives immediately on acceptance and makes full text available after
three months. It is unlikely that self-archiving would have much of an
impact on citation rate.

The 50-250% impact advantage is based on comparing the number of citations
for articles (within the same journal and year) that are and are not
freely accessible on the web:

   http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm
   http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/

If a journal makes all of its articles immediately accessible free, it is
an OA journal (and it does not enter into our calculation of the OA
advantage, it's all numerator and no denominator).

Of course the articles in a non-OA journal are also available for citation
-- to all those who have access to the non-OA version. That version is
used and cited (the denominator is not zero), but the articles that have a
self-archived OA version get used and cited more, and that is the point.
They can be accessed by those would-be users whose institutions cannot
afford access to the non-OA version.

And over 90% of journals are now -- like Diabetes, Diabetes Care, J Clin
Endo Metab -- green on author self-archiving. Nevertheless, only 15% of
authors are self-archiving. And that too is the point -- and the point of
my article, which was written in support of the RCUK's proposal to mandate
self-archiving.
   http://romeo.eprints.org/

As to delayed access -- whether the delay is 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
or more: Delayed access is not open access, and delayed access does not
maximise usage and citations, which is, again, the point. In fact, early
access and usage -- at the growth region of new research, is often the
most important in rapidly developing research. The "Early Advantage" is
one of the (at least six) components of the OA Advantage:

   "EA: EARLY ADVANTAGE, beginning already at the pre-refereeing
   preprint stage. Research that is reported earlier can begin being
   used and built upon earlier. The result turns out to be not just
   that it gets its quota of citations sooner, but that quota actually
   goes up, permanently.  This is probably because earlier uptake has
   a greater cumulative effect on the research cycle."
   http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/29-guid.html

See the findings of Kurtz, in astrophysics:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/


The most worrisome aspect of Harnad's analysis is that it may allow
legislators to dodge the real problem behind lack of scientific
progress--the underfunding of research--and instead pin their hopes on
the magic bullet of self-archiving.

Research is indeed underfunded, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with
the fact that research is also underused because it is not widely enough
accessible. Self-archiving will not remedy the former, but that is
certainly no reason it should not remedy the latter.

Stevan Harnad