Re: Open access to research worth A3 1.5bn a year

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

The OA impact figure will actually drop, not rise, over time.  Whatever
apparent benefits that OA articles have at present is a function of the
temporary inefficiency in search-engine marketing, an inefficiency that
will disappear as well-capitalized, thoughtful publishers begin to work on
search-engine optimization and site optimization and begin to leverage
their network of properties to ensure that their publications are found,
indexed, and ranked highly by search engines.  This is called marketing.  
Some OA publishers will do nicely with this, too, but others will be
hamstrung by a lack of capital and the absence of a network of related
sites.

These very same well-capitalized publishers will be quick to explain to
authors how this works, and will thus be in an advantaged position to
attract the finest authors.  This is called publishing.  Proprietary
publications will thus attract even more readers and citations, completing
the network effect.

Some idealists will continue to pursue OA out of the misguided notion that
"open" access means "more" access, when in fact open access may mean
marginalized access.  The most highly cited articles reside at what is
called "the short tail of the logarithmic curve," not the long tail.  
Some individuals will continue to resist the structure of the economy and
the nature of networked media.  This is called amateurism.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Open access to research worth A3 1.5bn a year

> In response to Phil Davis' post of Sept. 29:
>
> For the most up to date information on the OA impact advantage, please
> see Steve Hitchock's excellent bibliography of the many, many studies
> replicating this effect, at:
> http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
>
> Phil pointed out that the JEP study, quoted by Peter Banks, failed to
> support the hypothesis of the impact advantage of OA.  This single study
> is not significant, particularly when, as Phil points out, selection
> bias alone could explain the anomalous results.
>
> As Stevan Harnad has pointed out on American Scientist Open Access
> Forum, the JEP article quoted by Peter Banks is dated - another
> potential source of error in the current environment.  That is, early
> on, when fewer articles were available as open access, fewer people
> would have been looking for OA copies.
>
> As Phil points out, the OA impact advantage may not be a fixed figure.
> Hence, the current average of about 50% - 250%.  It is possible that
> there will always be differences in this figure, due to different
> reading and citation patterns in different disciplines, and for
> different journals. It is demonstrating the consistency of the OA impact
> advantage effect that is important, not the specific percentage increase
> in citations.
>
> My prediction is that the OA impact advantage will gradually rise over
> time. That is, the more people are aware of OA, the more they will seek
> OA articles.  As David Stern pointed out in another message today, a
> link resolver may not integrate open access articles seamlessly; there
> is work to be done here.  Once this technical work is done, it seems
> reasonable to predict that the OA impact advantage will rise yet again.
>
> In time, too, it seems likely that usage of non-OA articles will
> decrease, simply because they are less useful.  Readers will (and
> should) begin to expect clickable references.  Non-OA articles will be
> clickable for some readers, but not others.
>
> Some of us have already gone past this point already.  If there are two
> articles demonstrating the same phenomenon, and you only need one to
> demonstrate a point, which will you pick, the OA article, or the non-OA
> article?  If you care about your readers, you'll pick the OA version.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Heather Morrison
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com