Re: Open Access Citation Impact Advantage: weight of the evidence

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

That was not what Sandy was saying.  His comment is deeply and 
wickedly ironic.  Read it again--slowly this time, and savor.

Joe Esposito

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Ken Masters 
<kmasters@ithealthed.com> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Sandy, perhaps your comment about Heather's "claim" is more
> flippant in its reading that you intended.
>
> The article that she refers to is a literature review showing the
> current (2010) status of research in the area.  It is perfectly
> acceptable to refer to a literature review to back up an argument
> - that is standard procedure in ANY academic discourse.  The
> whole POINT of a literature review is to gather all relevant
> information on the topic so that we do not have situation where
> people refer to a single study to make a generalisation.  If
> you're going to knock the concept of a literature review as
> having any value or validity, then you're about to go up against
> a few hundred thousand researchers.
>
> While we can argue about "truth" ("What is truth?"), when we have
> a situation that a literature review shows more studies
> indicating X than Y, then X has the strongest standing.
> Otherwise, there would be little point to the review.  So, yes,
> Heather's argument appears as solid as any.
>
> If you want, you can question the process of the review.  This
> review, however, explains exactly the search process, so has
> complete transparency.  The only way to criticise it would be if
> you questioned the search process (terms, data bases, etc) or
> interpretations of the results.  For the first, you would need to
> demonstrate a legitimate alternative that would provide
> materially different results; for the 2nd, you would need to
> analyse the studies yourself, and again indicate that your
> analysis showed materially different results.  (Personally, I
> would have preferred it if the results were laid out as a
> meta-analysis, but that is personal preference only, and I can't
> see any reason to believe that it would materially affect the
> interpretation.)
>
> Until that point has been reached, however, I see no valid reason
> to question the review, or Heather's argument.
>
> Worse, you only counter has been shown in the review by using an
> opinion based on a personal perception.  While you're entitled to
> your opinion, it can surely only hold water if you back it up
> with research - and I'd suggest a literature review (and/or a
> large-scale study of your own) would probably be the most
> powerful road to follow.  Until then, I'm afraid, it's only
> speculation vs. research.
>
> Regards
>
> Dr. Ken Masters
> Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
> Medical Education Unit
> College of Medicine & Health Sciences
> Sultan Qaboos University
> Sultanate of Oman
> E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
>
> ____/\/********\/\____
>
>> Subject: Re: Open Access Citation Impact Advantage: weight of the
>> evidence
>> From: Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>
>> Date: Wed, February 23, 2011 2:32 am
>> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>>
>> I hope Heather is not seriously making the claim that truth is
>> established by the greater number of articles that purport to
>> prove a citation advantage.
>>
>> What makes sense to me is that the highest-publishing authors
>> are located in those institutions that still can afford to
>> subscribe to a wide range of periodicals, and citations by them
>> would therefore be unaffected by OA.
>>
>> The greater the cancellation of journals, however, the more
>> even those scientists would be affected and the more OA could
>> be expected to make a difference.
>>
>> Sandy Thatcher
>>