reading and writing OA

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:10:15 -0500

Stevan,

I want to suggest
a paticular effect that I do not remember being discussed:
As beginning scientist readers use OA for both material
they can not access otherwise and
for material which is more easily reached through OA sites,
they come to appreciate the advantages of OA, and to realize that
the quality is sufficient for practical use.

As a result, when they come to publish, which typically starts
a few years later in their career, they are aware of OA & aware of its
its importance. Consequently they will likely publish OA.

This might account for the fact that OA is some fields is high
where it is not in adjacent fields--why it is higher in high energy
physics than in other fields (although the same repository is ready
to accommodate both), or why, as Kristin Antelman has found, it is
higher is economics than in political science.

It's a positive feedback effect, and if real, should lead to
accelerating use in future years (though it will be hard to disentangle
from increasing use due to increased general overall awareness. It
should be able to be distinguished from the effects of mandates, for
it will affect fields and places without them.







David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

dgoodman_at_princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG

> Prior AmSci Topic Thread:
> "Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons"
>
> The relevant ones to survey are not users but authors:
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
Received on Mon Nov 20 2006 - 22:16:16 GMT