Dear all, thanks for the great thread - what do you think of turning it into a contribution to the next issue of the Research Newsletter, which is likely to be started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/Recent_research soon? During the Wikimania hackathon, we also discussed this paper, and we had an email exchange with the authors as well as the writer of a review of the paper: https://keet.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/wikipedia-open-access-not-quite-a-revolution-not-yet-at-least/ . Will dig out my notes on it and try to contribute to the Signpost piece.
Cheers, Daniel On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Mark J. Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andrew Gray <[email protected]> writes: > >> They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA". But >> this is, in some ways, a very small sample. See, eg/, pp. >> http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf, >> which suggests that articles in gold OA titles represent less than 15% >> of the total amount "freely available" through various forms. >> >> Given this limitation, it seems quite plausible that the actual >> OA:citation correlation is higher on a *per-paper* basis... we just >> don't really have the information to be sure. > > I agree, though I think one reason the studies are oriented that way > (besides convenience of data) is that a main policy-evaluation goal of > such studies is to answer the question: is the OA / non-OA decision for > a journal one that will significantly affect their impact factor? If > going OA improves citations, then that's an argument in favor of going > OA. To answer that question, the relevant comparison is OA vs. non-OA > journals (preferably comparing similarly situated journals within > fields). > > Papers from non-OA journals that are nonetheless available on the > internet for free make more a more complex case, both in terms of how > they got there, and what the policy implications should be. Though still > an interesting case! > > -- > Mark J. Nelson > Anadrome Research > http://www.kmjn.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
