May 15, 2006

Open Access Speeds Use by Others of Scientific Papers, Study Finds

In the continuing debate about open access to scientific literature, the pro-access side gained strength with a study, published this afternoon, that says that, during the first four to 16 months after publication, papers with free access get cited more often than those that require subscriptions. The study appears in an open-access journal, PLoS Biology, and was written by Gunther Eysenbach, of the University of Toronto, who also edits another open-access journal, the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The study is the first to compare open-access and non-open-access papers from the same journal. Mr. Eysenbach compared papers published in the journal Proccedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the latter half of 2004. That journal began in June 2004 to offer authors the option of paying $1,000 to make their articles free online upon publication. If authors did not pay the extra fee, their papers remained password-protected for the first six months after publication.

Mr. Eysenbach found that the open-access papers were twice as likely as the password-protected articles to be cited four to 10 months after publication, and almost three times as likely from 10 to 16 months afterward. Not yet clear is whether the open-access advantage increases citation in the long run or whether the trend is similar for other journals.

The open-access movement has drawn additional strength in recent months from pressure in Congress to make taxpayer-supported research freely available (The Chronicle, May 3) and from the European Commission (The Chronicle, April 19).

Comments

1. The Eysenbach study is certainly not “the first to compare open-access and non-open-access papers from the same journal”. See the growing bibliography of studies on the open-access citation advantage.

   Other studies listed there will also give CHE readers a better idea of whether it is indeed ”[n]ot yet clear… whether the open-access advantage increases citation in the long run or whether the trend is similar for other journals.”

   Stevan Harnad
   American Scientist Open Access Forum

   — Stevan Harnad    May 15, 10:21 PM    #

2. Many studies have confirmed citation advantages for articles available freely to the public, yet to believe that Open Access is the cause of more citations may be to wrongly ascribe cause.

   In our study of mathematics articles that were posted to the arXiv , we could not find any evidence to support the postulate that Open Access leads to more citations.

   The most likely cause was some form of self-selection, leading to better articles being posted to the arXiv. Open Access may have been merely an artifact, not a cause, of a citation differential.

   see: Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?

   — Philip Davis    May 16, 10:50 AM    #

3. Harnad and Davis are both right. Yes, there have been previous studies on GREEN open access publishing, and as Davis notes, these studies have fundamental flaws, as the authors did not control for confounders, and because the arrow of causation is unclear. In contrast, the PLoS study is about GOLD OA publishing. In that area it is indeed the first such study, and the first study which addresses the self-selection concern.

   — Gunther Eysenbach    May 16, 09:51 PM    #

Previous: Judge Puts the Kibosh on Prowling Police at Washington State U.
Next: 3rd Duke Lacrosse Player Is Indicted on Rape Charges