[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher dowloads?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher dowloads?
- From: Stevan Harnad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:14:48 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Peter Banks wrote: > [Re: Kristin Antelman's findings] I... suspect that there is a=20 > small OA citation advantage, I am not convinced by these=20 > data... I doubt that most of the results reach statistical=20 > significance... Based on past postings from Peter, I think there may be an=20 element of wishful thinking here (ex officio)! Peter, if you are=20 not convinced by KA's data alone, look at all the other data that=20 shows the same thing. For example, see Figure 4 in: Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Gingras, Y. (2005) Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 28(4) pp. 39-47. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/ You will see that the ratio of the proportion of OA articles to=20 non-OA articles peaks in the 4-7 citation range, and falls off=20 for higher and lower citation (quality) ranges. But it is always=20 greater than one (i.e., an OA Advantage) except for articles with=20 zero citations (where the ratio reverses); that of course is also=20 the largest number of articles. But this effect is again just a correlation, and is just as=20 compatible with a Quality self-selection Bias (QB) as with a=20 Quality Advantage (QA) (except that it is hard to see why=20 self-selection QB should peak at the 4-7 range, whereas it's=20 perhaps less difficult to see how a QA advantage could have=20 inverted U-shape, absent for the duds and trivial for the gems --=20 but this awaits more confirmatory data and ways of testing=20 causality more directly. > I also don't understand how these data exclude Phil's=20 > hypothesis. Since Kristin seems to define quality in terms of=20 > citations, then the logic seems self-referential: how would one=20 > detect a difference in citation due to intrinsic quality when=20 > one has defined quality as number of citations? You're quite right, except that that argument cuts in both=20 directions: No data to date can decide directly between QA and=20 QB. Stevan Harnad American Scientist Open Access Forum http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.= html Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive Science Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & Computer Science Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of Southampton Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield, Southampton Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ ---2071850956-2071211110-1143075069=:18225--