[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open Access to Research worth $1.5bn
- To: Peter Banks <pbanks@diabetes.org>
- Subject: Re: Open Access to Research worth $1.5bn
- From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:24:52 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Banks wrote: > I did find one peer-reviewed study on the impact of open access > on citation rate: "Publishing Online-Only Peer-Reviewed Biomedical > Literature: Three Years of Citation, Author Perception, and Usage > Experience," by Kent Anderson and his colleagues. > > It is a study of online-only vs. print articles in the journal > Pediatrics. It does not find the same citation advantage for online > publications claimed by Harnad and his colleagues. > > See http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-03/anderson.html Please weigh findings against the preponderance of evidence. The comparison you are citing is for one journal only, and in one 3-year range only. Our data are for all ISI journals, across disciplines, across a 12-year range. The selection criterion (both by the author and by the journal (for the online-only publishing versus print) in that particular journal in that particular study are not at all the same as the self-selected decision on the part of authors to self-archive. I suggest, again, that Peter look at the bibliography below , and not only at one study congenial to his own preferred outcome. I am afraid he will not find much hope for his own preferred outcome there. Maximising online access to one's own articles by self-archiving them does not reduce their usage, it increases it, dramatically, and with virtually no exception (apart from occasional chance fluctuation, usually because of small sample size). That is not only the consistent outcome, both for the already peer-reviewed findings and the not yet-refereed ones, but it is also exactly what logic would dictate: that access is a necessary (if not a sifficient) precondition for usage. http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html Stevan Harnad PS (Note also the difference between studies comparing OA and non-OA journals, which are apples and oranges, with comparing articles within the same journal/year, differing only in whether or not the author has elected to self-archive.)
- Prev by Date: Re: Open access to research worth A3 1.5bn a year
- Next by Date: Re: OA articles in toll access journal: will they be lost ?
- Previous by thread: Tim O'Reilly OpEd piece on Authors Guild suit against Google
- Next by thread: Now Publishers Offers Discounted Packages of Foundations and Trends
- Index(es):