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

[Andrew A. Adams]

> 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 they do not publish research articles.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,

You are putting the cart before the horse here. A decision to cite depends 
(when the researcher is doing their job properly) on being able to read. Only 
after an article has been read can the decision to cite or not come into it. 
For some articles it may be plain from what is toll-fre accesible (the title 
for pretty much all articles, the abstract for almost all) that an article is 
important enough to pay whatever price is demanded for access in order to 
read it and then perhaps to cite it. Given that the cost for an article to 
which one has no institutional subscription access is usually, in my 
experience, $30+ for access, then in most cases I would expect researchers to 
look for alternative articles to read on a topic in which they are looking 
for relevant material. Those alternative articles will be one to which their 
institution has a subscription or those for which an OA version is easily 
available  (typically through a search engine though also through web links 
and through repository browsing and other routes).

If one works in a narrow field one is likely to have access to the small 
number of journals one needs. The broader one's field, and for 
interdisciplinary researchers this is a particular problem, the less likely 
it is that one's institution has a relevant subscription.

My own approach is certainly this. When looking at an area of research I use 
various methods of finding apparently-appropriate material, which I then 
delve deeper into, spiralling in on what is available to me (through 
subscription or OA) and reading a little bit more at each stage until I get 
to the point of reading a whole article before perhaps citing it. If I don't 
have access to the article, it doesn't even get added to my citaton database 
- what would be the point? I can't cite it if I can't read it and I have 
never paid for access to an inividual article --- I check for a version I can 
access, subscription or OA, then email the author if I can to ask for an 
eprint, but if that fails I abandon the idea of reading that article and move 
on. There's more published in my area than I could read all of so I read and 
then cite from what's available to me.

Anecdote not evidence, sure, but the large amounts of data on OA increasing 
citation rates does seem clear - in all significantly sized studies with 
appropriately chosen sets of articles, those that are available without cost 
to any and all potential citers are more often cited than those for whom 
potential citers are limited to those in institutions with subscription 
access to that article or those persuaded sight unseen to pay for access to 
that specific article.

-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      aaa at meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/