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

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

I was responding to exactly what Heather said, viz., that the 
"weight" of the evidence comes from "39 articles showing an open 
access citation impact advantage, in comparison with 7 articles" 
etc. In no science I know does truth get determined by simple 
quantity of articles asserting a claim. I am glad Heather 
clarified her meaning in a subsequent post.

Sandy Thatcher


At 6:07 PM -0500 2/23/11, Ken Masters 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