[GOAL] Tireless Ad Hoc Critiques of OA Study After OA Study: Will Wishful Thinking Ever Cease?

[Stevan Harnad]

Comment on Elsevier Editors' Update by Henk Moed: "Does Open Access
publishing increase citation rates? Studies conducted in this area
have not yet adequately controlled for various kinds of sampling
bias." http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/2012/03/the-effect-of-open-access-upon-citation-impact/

No study based on samples and statistical significance-testing has the
force of an unassailable mathematical proof.

But how many studies showing that OA articles are downloaded and cited
more have to be published before the ad hoc critiques (many funded and
promoted by an industry that has something of an interest in the
outcome!) and the hopeful special pleading tire of the chase?

There are a lot more studies to try to explain away here:
http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

Most of them just keep finding the same thing...

(By the way, on another stubborn truth that keeps coming back despite
untiring efforts to say it isn't so: Not only is OA research
downloaded and cited more -- as common sense would expect, as a result
of making it accessible free for all, rather than just for those whose
institutions can afford a subscription -- but requiring (mandating) OA
self-archiving increases OA self-archiving. Where on earth did Henk
get the idea that some institutions' self-archiving "did not increase
when their OA regime was transformed from non-mandatory into
mandatory"? Or is Henk just referring to the "mandates" that state
that "you are required to self-archive only if and when your publisher
says you may self-archive, and not if they say you may only
self-archive if you are not required to"...? Incredulous? See here --
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html -- and
weep for the credulous [or chuckle for the sensible]...)

Stevan Harnad