I can confirm Stevan's remarks about self-selectivity. Besides current work,
I have archived only my previous works that I have thought significant in
some way. Papers that I consider obsolete or of limited interest were not
self-archived. I have observed this in the staff who archive in my
repository too.
Arthur Sale
Professor of Computing (Research)
University of Tasmania
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2005 14:36
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: OA Impact Advantage = EA + (AA) + (QB) + QA + (CA) + UA
>
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Mcsean, Tony (ELS) wrote:
>
> > Another complication in trying to arrive at a like-for-like
> > comparison is which of their articles authors choose to self-archive.
> > Maybe I'm just a cynical old git, but would be surprising to me if
authors
> > weren't at least slightly more likely to self-archive their best work
and
> > less likely to be bothered with their more humdrum output. You might
> > expect these to be more heavily cited however they were made available.
>
> Not cynical at all. There *are* indications of a self-selection Quality
> Bias (QB) on the part of authors, towards preferentially self-archiving
> their better articles (as well as for the better authors to self-archive
> their articles). (It would be quite surprising if there were not.) As
> I think I mentioned before, Michael Kurtz has written about this in
> astrophysics. (See Steve Hitchcock's bibliography for
> references: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html ).
>
Received on Sat Oct 01 2005 - 07:50:37 BST