The results obtained for computer science by analysis of CiteSeer are
distorted for a variety of reasons. They cannot be compared with the
literature of e.g. life sciences. Computer science is heavily dependent upon
conference literature. I cannot comment upon the physics literature, but
there are other studies which seem to indicate that readership increases
will not necessarily be followed by increased citation impact.
In one study of a single chemical journal that I refereed there were about
100 readerships for each citation of that journal, but there did not seem to
be any perceptible increase of citation by the research literature.
Undoubtedly the web will increase apparent readership of literature, but
that will not necessarily change the population of relevant researchers who
are in a position to cite particular studies.
I do not think the ISI study is definitive but it is not irrelevant. Gene
Eugene Garfield, PhD. email garfield_at_codex.cis.upenn.edu
tel 215-243-2205 fax 215-387-1266
President, The Scientist www.the-scientist.com
Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com
home page: www.eugenegarfield.org
Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology
(ASIS&T) www.asis.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:13 PM
To: SIGMETRICS_at_LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs.
open-access research
Prior Topic Thread:
"How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2858.html
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:11:59 +0100
From: "Garfield, Eugene" <garfield_at_codex.cis.upenn.edu>
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Fyi and posting. Gene
Eugene Garfield, PhD.
http://www.eugenegarfield.org/
President, The Scientist LLC.
http://www.the-scientist.com/
Chairman Emeritus, ISI
http://www.isinet.com/
Attached is the news release regarding Open Access journals covered by Web
of Science.
<<OpenAccess.doc>>
Rodney Yancey, Manager, Corporate Communications, Thomson Scientific
[Amsci Forum Moderator's Note: The ISI press release says:
"Today, Thomson ISI... announced that journals published in the
new Open Access (OA) model are beginning to register impact in
the world of scholarly research... Of the 8,700 selected journals
currently covered in Web of Science, 191 are OA journals... [A
study on] whether OA journals perform differently from other
journals in their respective fields [found] that there was no
discernible difference in terms of citation impact or frequency
with which the journal is cited."
http://www.isinet.com/oaj
But if you want to get a better idea of the effect of OA on impact,
don't just compare the 2% of ISI journals that are OA journals
with the 98% that are not, to find that they are equal in impact
(for this may well be comparing apples with oranges). Compare the
much higher percentage of *articles* from the 98% non-OA journals
that have been made OA by their authors -- by self-archiving
them -- with articles (from the very same journals and volumes)
that have *not* been made OA by their authors: You will find that
there is indeed a discernible difference in terms of frequency
with which the *article* is cited, and that that difference
is from 250%-550% in favor of the articles that their authors
have made OA! That is what an ongoing series of comparisons
based on a 10-year sample of the same ISI database across all
disciplines is revealing (in computer science and physics so far):
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/OA-TAadvantage.pdf
Stevan Harnad.]
______________________________________________________________________
Received on Thu Apr 15 2004 - 02:46:29 BST