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

[Ross Mounce]

Dear Jan,

> the citations to articles will not be hampered by accessibility.

You're kidding me right?
It's quite common to have points in a manuscript that need to be
supported by several references (X 2001; Y 2002; Z 2003).  In these
instances, in my experience researchers use the most famous examples,
but also the most easily accessible examples. But the advantage is not
just limited to this case. There's an abundance of literature these
days, and thus the researcher has a choice of which articles to cite
(often it would be too excessive to cite all relevant papers). Thus
easily accessible articles have a clear advantage.

It's very hard to cite articles you can't easily access!

With the pressure to publish, no-one will wait days for an
inter-library loan. They'll just search for an alternative immediately
accessible paper to cite.  It's not lazy scholarship, it's practical
efficient scholarship in my opinion. And it inadvertently or otherwise
promotes open access research, which in my opinion is no bad thing.

So I'm really not surprised open access research has citation
benefits. It makes intuitive sense to me as a current researcher.


Ross

--
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Ross Mounce
PhD Student
Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
University of Bath
4 South Building, Lab 1.07
http://about.me/rossmounce
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-



On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:40 AM,  <J.W.Schoones at lumc.nl> wrote:
> Dear Stevan,
>
> Is it really common sense? You write: "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".
>
> First, downloaded more - I can agree. But cited more? This might be an entire different matter. Usually, as common sense would expect, researchers will cite. The general public, however, will not cite - they do not publish research articles. Given that researchers have "more" access than the general public, due to the access policies of their institution (paid-for-access, open-access, access-by-delivery), the citations to articles will not be hampered by accessibility. Because when it comes to citing an article, a serious researcher has to read it. And to read it, means: getting access, in one way or another.
>
> Jan W. Schoones
> Walaeus Library, The Netherlands
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: donderdag 22 maart 2012 21:20
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Tireless Ad Hoc Critiques of OA Study After OA Study: Will Wishful Thinking Ever Cease?
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



--