Comparing OA/non-OA in Developing Countries

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:39:53 -0500

Comparing OA/non-OA in Developing Countries
      "[A]n investigation of the use of open access by
      researchers from developing countries... show[s]
      that open access journals are not characterised by a
      different composition of authors than the traditional
      toll access journals... [A]uthors from developing
      countries do not citeopen access more than authors from
      developed countries... [A]uthors from developing
      countries are not more attracted to open access than
      authors from developed countries.[underscoring
      added]"(Frandsen 2009, J. Doc. 65(1)) 
      (See also "Open Access: No Benefit for Poor Scientists")

Open Access is not the same thing as Open Access Journals.

Articles published in conventional non-Open-Access journals can also
be made Open Access (OA) by their authors -- by self-archiving them
in their own Institutional Repositories.

The Frandsen study focused on OA journals, not on OA articles. It is
problematic to compare OA and non-OA journals, because journals
differ in quality and content, and OA journals tend to be newer and
fewer than non-OA journals (and often not at the top of the quality
hierarchy). 

Some studies have reported that OA journals are cited more, but
because of the problem of equating journals, these findings are
limited. In contrast, most studies that have compared OA and
non-OA articles within the same journal and year have found a
significant citation advantage for OA. It is highly unlikely that
this is only a developed-world effect; indeed it is almost certain
that a goodly portion of OA's enhanced access, usage and impact comes
from developing-world users.

It is unsurprising that developing world authors are hesitant about
publishing in OA journals, as they are the least able to pay
author/institution publishing fees (if any). It is also unsurprising
that there is no significant shift in citations toward OA journals in
preference to non-OA journals (whether in the developing or developed
world): Accessibility is a necessary -- not a sufficient -- condition
for usage and citation: The other necessary condition isquality.
Hence it was to be expected that the OA Advantage would affect the
top quality research most. That's where the proportion of OA journals
is lowest.

The Seglen effect ("skewness of science") is that the top 20% of
articles tend to receive 80% of the citations. This is why the OA
Advantage is more detectable by comparing OA and non-OA articles
within the same journal, rather than by comparing OA and non-OA
journals.

We will soon be reporting results showing that the within-journal OA
Advantage is higher in "higher-impact" (i.e., more cited) journals.
Although citations are not identical with quality, they do correlate
with quality (when comparing like with like). So an easy way to
understand the OA Advantage is as a quality advantage -- with OA
"levelling the playing field" by allowing authors to select which
papers to cite on the basis of their quality, unconstrained by their
accessibility. This effect should be especially strong in the
developing world, where access-deprivation is greatest.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Received on Wed Jan 14 2009 - 17:14:56 GMT