Wednesday, February 23. 2011
The following quotes are from McCabe, MJ (2011) Online access versus open access. Inside Higher Ed. February 10, 2011.McCabe, MJ & Snyder, CM (2011) Did Online Access to Journals Change the Economics Literature?
MCCABE: …I thought it would be appropriate to address the issue that is generating some heat here, namely whether our results can be extrapolated to the OA environment….If "selection bias" refers to authors' bias toward selectively making their better (hence more citeable) articles OA, then this was controlled for in the comparison of self-selected vs. mandated OA, by Gargouri et al (2010) (uncited in the McCabe & Snyder (2011) [M & S] preprint, but known to the authors -- indeed the first author requested, and received, the entire dataset for further analysis: we are all eager to hear the results).
If "selection bias" refers to the selection of the journals for analysis, I cannot speak for studies that compare OA journals with non-OA journals, since we only compare OA articles with non-OA articles within the same journal. And it is only a few studies, like Evans and Reimer's, that compare citation rates for journals before and after they are made accessible online (or, in some cases, freely accessible online). Our principal interest is in the effects of immediate OA rather than delayed or embargoed OA (although the latter may be of interest to the publishing community).
MCCABE: 2. There are at least 2 “flavors” found in this literature: 1. papers that use cross-section type data or a single observation for each article (see for example, Lawrence (2001), Harnad and Brody (2004), Gargouri, et. al. (2010)) and 2. papers that use panel data or multiple observations over time for each article (e.g. Evans (2008), Evans and Reimer (2009)).We cannot detect any mention or analysis of the Gargouri et al. paper in the M & S paper…
MCCABE: 3. In our paper we reproduce the results for both of these approaches and then, using panel data and a robust econometric specification (that accounts for selection bias, important secular trends in the data, etc.), we show that these results vanish.We do not see our results cited or reproduced. Does "reproduced" mean "simulated according to an econometric model"? If so, that is regrettably too far from actual empirical findings to be anything but speculations about what would be found if one were actually to do the empirical studies.
MCCABE: 4. Yes, we “only” test online versus print, and not OA versus online for example, but the empirical flaws in the online versus print and the OA versus online literatures are fundamentally the same: the failure to properly account for selection bias. So, using the same technique in both cases should produce similar results.Unfortunately this is not very convincing. Flaws there may well be in the methodology of studies comparing citation counts before and after the year in which a journal goes online. But these are not the flaws of studies comparing citation counts of articles that are and are not made OA within the same journal and year.
Nor is the vague attribution of "failure to properly account for selection bias" very convincing, particularly when the most recent study controlling for selection bias (by comparing self-selected OA with mandated OA) has not even been taken into consideration.
Conceptually, the reason the question of whether online access increases citations over offline access is entirely different from the question of whether OA increases citations over non-OA is that (as the authors note), the online/offline effect concerns ease of access: Institutional users have either offline access or online access, and, according to M & S's results, in economics, the increased ease of accessing articles online does not increase citations.
This could be true (although the growth across those same years of the tendency in economics to make prepublication preprints OA [harvested by RepEc] through author self-archiving, much as the physicists had started doing a decade earlier in Arxiv, and computer scientists started doing even earlier [later harvested by Citeseerx] could be producing a huge background effect not taken into account at all in M & S's painstaking temporal analysis (which itself appears as an OA preprint in SSRN!).
But any way one looks at it, there is an enormous difference between comparing easy vs. hard access (online vs. offline) and comparing access with no access. For when we compare OA vs non-OA, we are taking into account all those potential users that are at institutions that cannot afford subscriptions (whether offline or online) to the journal in which an article appears. The barrier, in other words (though one should hardly have to point this out to economists), is not an ease barrier but a price barrier: For users at nonsubscribing institutions, non-OA articles are not just harder to access: They are impossible to access -- unless a price is paid.
(I certainly hope that M & S will not reply with "let them use interlibrary loan (ILL)"! A study analogous to M & S's online/offline study comparing citations for offline vs. online vs. ILL access in the click-through age would not only strain belief if it too found no difference, but it too would fail to address OA, since OA is about access when one has reached the limits of one's institution's subscription/license/pay-per-view budget. Hence it would again miss all the usage and citations that an article would have gained if it had been accessible to all its potential users and not just to those whose institutions could afford access, by whatever means.)
It is ironic that M & S draw their conclusions about OA in economic terms (and, predictably, as their interest is in modelling publication economics) in terms of the cost/benefits, for an author, of paying to publish in an OA journal. concluding that since they have shown it will not generate more citations, it is not worth the money.
But the most compelling findings on the OA citation advantage come from OA author self-archiving (of articles published in non-OA journals), not from OA journal publishing. Those are the studies that show the OA citation advantage, and the advantage does not cost the author a penny! (The benefits, moreover, accrue not only to authors and users, but to their institutions too, as the economic analysis of Houghton et al shows.)
And the extra citations resulting from OA are almost certainly coming from users for whom access to the article would otherwise have been financially prohibitive. (Perhaps it's time for more econometric modeling from the user's point of view too…)
I recommend that M & S look at the studies of Michael Kurtz in astrophysics. Those, too, included sophisticated long-term studies of the effect of the wholesale switch from offline to online, and Kurtz found that total citations were in fact slightly reduced, overall, when journals became accessible online! But astrophysics, too, is a field in which OA self-archiving is widespread. Hence whether and when journals go online is moot, insofar as citations are concerned.
(The likely hypothesis for the reduced citations -- compatible also with our own findings in Gargouri et al -- is that OA levels the playing field for users: OA articles are accessible to all their potential usesr, not just to those whose institutions can afford toll access. As a result, users can self-selectively decide to cite only the best and most relevant articles of all, rather than having to make do with a selection among only the articles to which their institutions can afford toll access. One corollary of this [though probably also a spinoff of the Seglen/Pareto effect] is that the biggest beneficiaries of the OA citation advantage will be the best articles. This is a user-end -- rather than an author-end -- selection effect...)
MCCABE: 5. At least in the case of economics and business titles, it is not even possible to properly test for an independent OA effect by specifically looking at OA journals in these fields since there are almost no titles that switched from print/online to OA (I can think of only one such title in our sample that actually permitted backfiles to be placed in an OA repository). Indeed, almost all of the OA titles in econ/business have always been OA and so no statistically meaningful before and after comparisons can be performed.The multiple conflation here is so flagrant that it is almost laughable. Online ≠ OA and OA ≠ OA journal.
First, the method of comparing the effect on citations before vs. after the offline/online switch will have to make do with its limitations. (We don't think it's of much use for studying OA effects at all.) The method of comparing the effect on citations of OA vs. non-OA within the same (economics/business, toll-access) journals can certainly proceed apace in those disciplines, the studies have been done, and the results are much the same as in other disciplines.
M & S have our latest dataset: Perhaps they would care to test whether the economics/business subset of it is an exception to our finding that (a) there is a significant OA advantage in all disciplines, and (b) it's just as big when the OA is mandated as when it is self-selected.
MCCABE: 6. One alternative, in the case of cross-section type data, is to construct field experiments in which articles are randomly assigned OA status (e.g. Davis (2008) employs this approach and reports no OA benefit).And another one -- based on an incomparably larger N, across far more fields -- is the Gargouri et al study that M & S fail to mention in their article, in which articles are mandatorily assigned OA status, and for which they have the full dataset in hand, as requested.
MCCABE: 7. Another option is to examine articles before and after they were placed in OA repositories, so that the likely selection bias effects, important secular trends, etc. can be accounted for (or in economics jargon, “differenced out”). Evans and Reimer’s attempt to do this in their 2009 paper but only meet part of the econometric challenge.M & S are rather too wedded to their before/after method and thinking! The sensible time for authors to self-archive their papers is immediately upon acceptance for publication. That's before the published version has even appeared. Otherwise one is not studying OA but OA embargo effects. (But let me agree on one point: Unlike journal publication dates, OA self-archiving dates are not always known or taken into account; so there may be some drift there, depending on when the author self-archives. The solution is not to study the before/after watershed, but to focus on the articles that are self-archived immediately rather than later.)
Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLOS ONE 5 (10). e13636
Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus 28 (1): 55-59.
Sunday, October 31. 2010
Workshop on Open Archives and their Significance in the Communication of Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 16-17 November 2010
Sunday, September 26. 2010
An article by Ulrich Herb (2010) [UH] is predicated on one of the oldest misunderstandings about OA: that OA ≡ OA journals ("Gold OA") and that the obstacle to OA is that OA journals don't have a high enough impact factor:
UH:The usual solution that is proposed for this non-problem is that we should therefore give OA journals a higher weight in performance evaluation, despite their lower impact factor, in order to encourage OA.
(This is nonsense, and it is not the "solution" proposed by UH. A journal's weight in performance evaluation needs to be earned -- on the basis of its content's quality and impact -- not accorded by fiat, in order to encourage OA.)
The "solution" proposed by UH is not to give OA journals a higher a-priori weight, but to create new impact measures that will accord them a higher weight.
UH:New impact measures are always welcome -- but they too must earn their weights based on their track-records for validity and predictivity.
And what is urgently needed by and for research and researchers is not more new impact measures but more OA.
And the way to provide more OA is to provide OA to more articles -- which can be done in two ways, not just the one way of publishing in OA journals (Gold OA), but by self-archiving articles published in all journals (whether OA or non-OA) in institutional repositories, to make them OA ("Green OA").
Ulrich Herb seems to have misunderstood this completely (equating OA with Gold OA only). The contradiction is evident in two successive paragraphs:
UH:The bold-face passage in the second paragraph is completely erroneous, and in direct contradiction with what is stated in the immediately preceding paragraph. For the increased citations generated by making articles in any journal (OA or non-OA) OA by making them freely accessible online are included in the relevant databases used to calculate journal impact. Indeed, most of the evidence that OA increases citations comes from comparing the citation counts of articles (in the same journal and issue) that are and are not made OA by their authors. (And these within-journal comparisons are necessarily based on Green OA, not Gold OA.)
Yes, there are journals (OA and non-OA -- mostly non-OA!) that are not (yet) indexed by some of the databases (WoS, JCR, Scopus, etc.); but that is not an OA problem.
Yes, let's keep enhancing the visibility and harvestability of OA content; but that is not the OA problem: the problem is that most content is not yet OA.
And yes, let's keep developing rich, new OA metrics; but you can't develop OA metrics until the content is made OA.
Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3).
Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer Rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi:10.3354/esep00088 (Special issue: The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance)
Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1)
Herb, Ulrich (2010) OpenAccess Statistics: Alternative Impact Measures for Open Access documents? An examination how to generate interoperable usage information from distributed Open Access services., 2010 In: L'information scientifique et technique dans l'univers numérique. Mesures et usages. L'association des professionnels de l'information et de la documentation, ADBS, pp. 165-178
Wednesday, July 21. 2010
MELIBEA's validator assesses OA policies using an algorithm that generates for each policy a one-dimensional measure, "OA%val," based on a number of weighted factors.
In assigning weights to these factors it is it not just a matter of whether one puts a greater weight on green than on gold overall. The devil is in the details. Since MELIBEA's "OA%val" is one-dimensional, the exact weights assigned by the algorithm matter very much, for in some crucial combinations the "score" can be deleterious to green (and hence to OA itself) by assigning any non-zero weight at all to gold in an OA policy evaluation. I will use the most problematic case to illustrate:
With all the policy components that one can combine in order to give an OA policy a score, consider the relative weighting one is to give to four policy models:
Policy Model 1 neither requires green nor funds gold (gr/go)One can agree to weight GR/GO > gr/go
One can also agree (as above) to weight GR/go > gr/GO
One can even agree to weight GR/GO > GR/go (although I do have reservations about this, because the potential deterrent effects of over-demanding early policy models on the spread of green OA mandates, but I will not bring these reservations into this discussion)
The problematic case concerns whether to assign a greater weight to gr/GO than to gr/go in the MELIBEA score (i.e., whether gr/GO > gr/go, Policy 4 vs. Policy 3).
I am strongly opposed to weighting gr/GO > gr/go, because I am convinced that when an institution adopts a premature gold payment policy without first adopting a green requirement policy, this diminishes rather than increases the likelihood of an upgrade to a green requirement.
So in that case, despite the fact that a gr/GO policy no doubt generates somewhat more OA than gr/go, this small local increase OA is not better for the growth of OA overall. Rather, it reinforces the widespread misconception that the way to generate OA is to pay for gold OA (and then wait for others to do the same). Such a policy neglects the much more important need to mandate green OA, cost-free, first. It tries to pay for OA even while subscriptions are still paying the full cost of publication, hence still tying down most of the potential funds to pay for gold OA. Giving a gr/GO policy a higher weight than gr/go obscures the fact that paid gold can only cover a small fraction of an institution's output, and at an extra cost, whereas requiring green covers all of it, and at no extra cost.
There are ways to remedy this, algorithmically (for example, by giving GO a non-zero weight only when GR also has a non-zero weight).
The important point to note, however, is that these algorithmic subtleties are not resolved by simply stating that one assigns a higher weight -- even a much higher weight -- to GR than to GO: Promoting the right priorities in OA policy design requires a much more nuanced approach.
Regarding the question of IR (institutional repository) vs CR (central repository) deposit too, the devil is in the details. Just as one more Gold OA article is indeed one more piece of OA, exactly as one more Green OA deposit is, so too one more CR deposit is indeed one more piece of OA, exactly as one more IR deposit is.
But the goal is to weight the algorithm to promote stronger policy models, not just to promote isolated increments in OA. And just as a policy that pays for gold without mandating green is generating only a little more OA at the expense of not generating a lot more OA, so a funder policy that mandates CR deposit instead of IR deposit is generating only a little more OA at the expense of not generating a lot more OA (by reinforcing -- at no cost, and with no loss in OA -- the adoption of a cooperative, convergent IR deposit policy for the rest of each institution's output, funded and unfunded, across all its discipline, instead of gratuitously competing with institutional OA policies, by adopting a divergent CR deposit policy).
The problem is not with publishers' green policies but with institutions' (and funders) lack of green policies! Over 60% of journals endorse immediate Green OA deposit for the postprint and over 40% more for the preprint (hence over 90% of all articles, overall), yet only 15% of articles are being deposited annually overall, because less than 1% of institutions have yet mandated deposit.
This is the real gap that needs to be closed -- and can be closed, immediately, by mandating Green OA. And this is what is completely overlooked by institutions and funders hurrying to pay for gold OA instead of first mandating green OA, or funders needlessly mandating CR deposit instead of IR deposit.
The fact is that there are still much fewer than even 1% mandates (about 160, out of a total of perhaps 18,000 universities plus 8,000 research institutions and at least several hundred major funders, funding across multiple institutions, worldwide). The lesson before us is hence most definitely not that mandates are not enough; it is that there are not enough mandates -- far from it.
Gold OA payment is minor matter, providing a small amount of OA, whereas green OA mandates are a major priority, able to scale up to providing 100% OA. Gold is nothing but a distraction -- for either an institution or a funder -- until and unless it first mandates green.
Nor is the problem that publishers are only paying lip-service to repository deposit. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of institutions and funders are still only paying lip service to repository deposit -- instead of mandating it.
Nor will funders and institutions pre-emptively paying publishers for gold without first mandating green (while subscriptions are still paying for publishing, tying up the potential funds to pay for gold) solve the problem of getting green mandated by institutions and funders.
For these reasons it is not enough, in evaluating OA Policy factors, just to give Green OA a higher weight than Gold OA.
Monday, July 19. 2010
The MELIBEA Open Access policy validator is timely and promising. It has the potential to become very useful and even influential in shaping OA mandates -- but that makes it all the more important to get it right, rather than releasing MELIBEA prematurely, when it still risks increasing confusion rather than providing clarity and direction in OA policy-making.
Remedios Melero is right to point out that -- unlike the CSIC Cybermetrics Lab's 's University Rankings and Repository Rankings -- the MELIBEA policy validator is not really meant to be a ranking. Yet MELIBEA has set up its composite algorithm and its graphics to make it a ranking just the same.
It is further pointed out, correctly, that MELIBEA's policy criteria for institutions and funders are not (and should not be) the same. Yet, with the coding as well as the algorithm, they are treated the same way (and funder policy is taken to be the generic template, institutional policy merely an ill-fitting special case).
It is also pointed out, rightly, that a gold OA publishing policy is not central to institutional OA policy making -- yet there it is, contributing sizeable components to the MELIBEA algorithm.
It is also pointed out that MELIBEA's green color code has nothing to do with the "green OA" coding -- yet there it is -- red, green yellow -- competing with the widespread use of green to designate OA self-archiving, and thereby inducing confusion, both overt and covert.
MELIBEA could be a useful and natural complement to the ROARMAP registry of OA policies. I (and no doubt other OA advocates) would be more than happy to give MELIBEA feedback on every aspect of its design and rationale.
But as it is designed now, I can only agree with Steve Hitchcock's points and conclude that consulting MELIBEA today would be likely to create and compound confusion rather than helping to bring the all-important focus and direction to OA policy-making that I am sure CSIC, too, seeks, and seeks to help realize.
Here are just a few prima facie points:
(1) Since MELIBEA is not, and should not be construed as a ranking of OA policies -- especially because it includes both institutional and funder policies -- it is important not to plug it into an algorithm until and unless the algorithm has first been carefully tested, with consultation, to make sure it weights policy criteria in a way that optimizes OA progress and guides policy-makers in the right direction.
I hope there will be substantive consultation and conscientious redesign of these and other aspects of MELIBEA before it can be recommended for serious consideration and use.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Thursday, July 8. 2010
Isidro Aguillo wrote in the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
IA: "I disagree with [Hélène Bosc's] proposal [to eliminate from the top 800 institutional repository rankings the multi-institution repositories and the repositories that contain the contents of other repositories as subsets]. We are not measuring only [repository] contents but [repository] contents AND visibility [o]n the web."Yes, you are measuring both contents and visibility, but presumably you want the difference between (1) the ranking of the top 800 repositories and (2) the ranking of the top 800 institutional repositories to be based on the fact that the latter are institutional repositories whereas the former are all repositories (central, i.e., multi-institutional, as well as institutional).
Moreover, if you list redundant repositories (some being the proper subsets of others) in the very same ranking, it seems to me the meaning of the RWWR rankings become rather vague.
IA: "Certainly HyperHAL covers the contents of all its participants, but the impact of these contents depends o[n] other factors. Probably researchers prefer to link to the paper in INRIA because of the prestige of this institution, the affiliation of the author or the marketing of their institutional repository."All true. But perhaps the significance and usefulness of the RWWR rankings would be greater if you either changed the weight of the factors (volume of full-text content, number of links) or, alternatively, you designed the rankings so the user could select and weight the criteria on which the rankings are displayed.
Otherwise your weightings become like the "h-index" -- an a-priori combination of untested, unvalidated weights that many users may not be satisfied with, or fully informed by...
IA: "But here is a more important aspect: If I were the president of INRIA I [would] prefer people using my institutional repository instead CCSD. No problem with the [CCSD], they are [doing] a great job and increasing the reach of INRIA, but the papers deposited are a very important (the most important?) asset of INRIA."But how heavily INRIA papers are linked, downloaded and cited is not necessarily (or even probably) a function of their direct locus!
What is important for INRIA (and all institutions) is that as much as possible of their paper output should be OA, simpliciter, so that it can be linked, downloaded, read, applied, used and cited. It is entirely secondary, for INRIA (and all institutions), where their papers are made OA, compared to the necessary condition that they are made OA (and hence freely accessible, useable, harvestable).
Hence (in my view) by far the most important ranking factor for institutional repositories is how much of their (annual) full-text institutional paper output is indeed deposited and made OA. INRIA would have no reason to be disappointed if the locus from which its content was being searched, retrieved and linked happened to be some other, multi-institutional harvester. INRIA still gets the credit and benefits from all those links, downloads and citations of INRIA content!
(Having said that, locus of deposit does matter, very much, for deposit mandates. Deposit mandates are necessary in order to generate OA content. And -- for strategic reasons that are elaborated in my own reply to Chris Armbruster -- it makes a big practical difference for success in reaching agreement on adopting a mandate in the first place that both institutional and funder mandates should require convergent institutional deposit, rather than divergent and competing institutional vs. institution-external deposit. Here too, your RWWR repository rankings would be much more helpful and informative if they gave a greater weight to the relative size of each institutional repository's content and eliminated multi-institutional repositories from the institutional repository rankings -- or at least allowed institutional repositories to be ranked independently on content vs links.
I think you are perhaps being misled here by the analogy with your sister rankings of world universities rather than just their repositories. In university rankings, the links to the university site itself matter a lot. But in repository rankings, links matter much less than how much institutional content is freely accessible at all. For the degree of usage and impact of that content, harvester sites may be more relevant measures, and, after all, downloads and citations, unlike links, carry their credits (to the authors and institutions) with them no matter where the transaction happens to occur...
IA: "Regarding the other comments we are going to correct those with mistakes but it is very difficult for us to realize that Virginia Tech University is 'faking' its institutional repository with contents authored by external scholars."I have called Gail McMillan at Virginia Tech to inquire about this, and she has explained it to me. The question was never whether Virginia Tech was "faking"! They simply host content over and above Virginia Tech content -- for example, OA journals whose content originates from other institutions.
As such, the Virginia Tech repository, besides providing access to Virginia Tech's own content, like other institutional repositories, is also a conduit or portal for accessing the content of other institutions (e.g., those providing the articles in the OA journals Virginia Tech hosts). The "credit" for providing that conduit, goes to Virginia Tech, of course. But the credit for the links, usage and citations goes to those other institutions!
When an institutional repository is also used as a portal for other institutions, its function becomes a hybrid one -- both an aggregator and a provider. I think it's far more useful and important to try to keep those functions separate, in both the rankings and the weightings of institutional repositories.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Saturday, July 3. 2010
In the world of journal articles, each article is both a "citing" item and a "cited" item. The list of references a given article cites provides that article's outgoing citations. And all the other articles in whose reference lists that article is cited provide that article's incoming citations.
Formerly, with Google Scholar (first launched in November 2004) (1) you could do a google-like boolean (and, or, not, etc.) word search, which ranked the articles that it retrieved by how highly cited they were. Then, for any individual citing article in that ranked list of citing articles, (2) you could go on to retrieve all the articles citing that individual cited article, again ranked by how highly cited they were. But you could not go on to do a boolean word search within just that set of citing articles; as of July 1 you can. (Thanks to Joseph Esposito for pointing this out on liblicense.)
Of course, Google Scholar is a potential scientometric killer-app that is just waiting to design and display powers far, far greater and richer than even these. Only two things are holding it back: (a) the sparse Open Access content of the web to date (only about 20% of articles published annually) and (b) the sleepiness of Google, in not yet realizing what a potentially rich scientometric resource and tool they have in their hands (or, rather, their harvested full-text archives).
Citebase gives a foretaste of some more of the latent power of an Open Access impact and influence engine (so does citeseerx), but even that is pale in comparison with what is still to come -- if only Green OA self-archiving mandates by the world's universities, the providers of all the missing content, hurry up and get adopted so that they can be implemented, and then all the target content for these impending marvels (not just 20% of it) can begin being reliably provided at long last.
(Elsevier's SCOPUS and Thomson-Reuters' Web of Knowledge are of course likewise standing by, ready to upgrade their services so as to point also to the OA versions of the content they index -- if only we hurry up and make it OA!)
Harnad, S. (2001) Proposed collaboration: google + open citation linking. OAI-General. June 2001.
Wednesday, March 17. 2010
In announcing Alma Swan's Review of Studies on the Open Access Impact Advantage, I had suggested that the growing number of studies on the OA Impact Advantage were clearly ripe for a meta-analysis. Here is an update:
Sunday, February 21. 2010
The following is a (belated) critique of:
"Impact Assesment," by Paul Chrisp (publisher, Core Medical Publishing) & Kevin Toale (Dove Medical Press). Pharmaceutical Marketing September 2008
"Open access has emerged in the last few years as a serious alternative to traditional commercial publishing models, taking the benefits afforded by technology one step further. In this model, authors are charged for publishing services, and readers can access, download, print and distribute papers free at the point of use."Incorrect.
Open Access (OA) means free online access and OA Publishing ("Gold OA") is just one of the two ways to provide OA (and not the fastest, cheapest or surest):
The fastest, cheapest and surest way to provide OA is OA Self-Archiving (of articles published in conventional non-OA journals: "Green OA") in the author's Institutional Repository.
"Although its ultimate goal is the free availability of information online, open access is not the same as free access – publishing services still cost money."Incorrect.
There are two forms of OA: (1) Gratis OA (free online access) and (2) Libre OA (free online access plus certain re-user rights)
"Other characteristics of open access journals are that authors retain copyright and they must self-archive content in an independent repository."Incorrect.
This again conflates Green and Gold OA:
Gold OA journals make their own articles free online.
In Green OA, articles self-archive their articles.
"researchers are depositing results in databases rather than publishing them in journal articles"Incorrect.
This conflates unrefereed preprint self-archiving with refereed, published postprint self-archiving.
Green OA is the self-archiving of refereed, published postprints.
The self-archiving of unrefereed preprints is an optional supplement to, not a substitute for, postprint OA.
"a manuscript may be read more times than it is cited, and research shows that online hits per article do not correlate with IF".Incorrect.
"Research shows" that online hits (downloads) do correlate with citations (and hence with citation impact factors).
See references cited below.
"Faculty of 1000 (www.f1000medicine.com)... asks opinion leaders in clinical practice and research to select the most influential articles in 18 medical specialties. Articles are evaluated and ranked..."Expert rankings are rankings and metrics (such as hit or citation counts) are metrics.
Metrics can and should be tested and validated against expert rankings. Validated metrics can then be used as supplements to -- or even substitutes for -- rankings. But the validation has to be done a much broader and more systematic basis than Faculty of 1000, and on a much richer set of candidate metrics.
Nor is the purpose of metrics "pharmaceutical marketing": It is to monitor, predict, navigate, analyze and reward research influence and importance.
Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A. and Chute, R. (2009) A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures in PLoS ONE 4(6): e6022,
Brody, T., Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2006) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 57(8) 1060-1072.
Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer Rankings . Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi:10.3354/esep00088 The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance
Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1) Also in Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds. (2007)
Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R.J., Wilczynski, N. L. and Haynes, R. B. (2008) Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study BMJ, 2008;336:655-657
Moed, H. F. (2005) Statistical Relationships Between Downloads and Citations at the Level of Individual Documents Within a Single Journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56(10): 1088- 1097
O'Leary, D. E. (2008) The relationship between citations and number of downloads Decision Support Systems 45(4): 972-980
Watson, A. B. (2009) Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles Journal of Vision 9(4): 1-4
Tuesday, January 5. 2010
Whether Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research
Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research
Authors: Yassine Gargouri, Chawki Hajjem, Vincent Larivière, Yves Gingras, Les Carr, Tim Brody, Stevan Harnad
Abstract: Articles whose authors make them Open Access (OA) by self-archiving them online are cited significantly more than articles accessible only to subscribers. Some have suggested that this "OA Advantage" may not be causal but just a self-selection bias, because authors preferentially make higher-quality articles OA. To test this we compared self-selective self-archiving with mandatory self-archiving for a sample of 27,197 articles published 2002-2006 in 1,984 journals. The OA Advantage proved just as high for both. Logistic regression showed that the advantage is independent of other correlates of citations (article age; journal impact factor; number of co-authors, references or pages; field; article type; or country) and greatest for the most highly cited articles. The OA Advantage is real, independent and causal, but skewed. Its size is indeed correlated with quality, just as citations themselves are (the top 20% of articles receive about 80% of all citations). The advantage is greater for the more citeable articles, not because of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but because of a quality advantage, from users self-selecting what to use and cite, freed by OA from the constraints of selective accessibility to subscribers only.
(Page 1 of 3, totaling 28 entries) » next page
Syndicate This Blog
Materials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.