On 20-Oct-04, at 10:28 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> I think the interpretation of this is fairly clear: Once there is 100%
> OA,
> research is used far more, and although the overall number of
> references
> per article may not increase, their *selectivity* does, because
> authors can
> cite what is most important and relevant, rather than just what their
> institutions happen to be able to afford to access (as is the case
> before
> there is 100% OA, which is the prevailing condition in all fields other
> than astro currently).
As Stevan points out, the citation advantage for OA as opposed to
non-OA materials is only demonstrable in traditional numeric terms for
fields that are only partially OA. Once 100% OA is achieved, then all
articles and authors have an equal research impact advantage.
Here is my perspective, as someone who is no expert on bibliometrics:
There are other obvious impact advantages of OA in a 100% OA field,
which may need different types of measurements. One example is the
increased quality of research that can proceed once researchers have
ready access to all the scholarly knowledge in their fields. Another
advantage that might not be picked up by traditional measurements is
increased citations in journals that are not covered by western-based
citation indexes. That is, researchers in developing countries will
have access, and are likely citing articles, but citations in
publications based in their home countries are not covered by current
indexes. Another clue to increasing impact in terms of usage is the
increase in downloads or readership that Stevan refers to. This may be
the beginnings of evidence of impact beyond academe, that is, usage by
professionals, teachers, students, etc.
Thoughts?
Heather G. Morrison
Project Coordinator
BC Electronic Library Network
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phone: 604-268-7001
Fax: 604-291-3023
Email: heatherm_at_eln.bc.ca
Web:
http://www.eln.bc.ca
Received on Wed Oct 20 2004 - 19:17:53 BST