JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIS-ELIB Archives


LIS-ELIB Archives

LIS-ELIB Archives


LIS-ELIB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIS-ELIB Home

LIS-ELIB Home

LIS-ELIB  November 2003

LIS-ELIB November 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Measuring cumulating research impact loss across fields and time

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:09:47 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (170 lines)

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, David Spurrett & Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

>ds> I look forward to the results of the empirical study you describe.
>ds> I would be curious to know... whether
>ds> there was a further pattern that related (a) the extent to which
>ds> publications by authors at particular institutions cited research
>ds> materials available through open access, with (b) their local
>ds> institutional budget for expenditure on journals.
>
>sa> Stevan Harnad talked about a study on the relative
>sa> citation rates of open-access and toll-access articles
>sa> he is conducting in collaboration with UQaM,
>sa> Southampton, Oldenburg and Loughborough. When will the
>sa> results become available? Will there be any interim
>sa> reports? I am curious to know.

The study is ongoing and we will report the results (as a pre-refereeing
preprint!) as soon as they are available. But meanwhile, much information
inheres in -- and many telling estimates can be made from -- the data
that are already available.

David Spurrett's & Subbiah Arunachalam's queries suggest the following
preliminary analysis, which can already be done by anyone on the basis
of the data already available. (I will ask our super-talented team at
Southampton if they can squeeze it in, along with all the other ongoing
studies!):

We know from the Lawrence study (below) that the citation enhancement factor
for open- vs. toll-access is about 4.5 in computer science (4.5 times as many
citations for open- vs. toll-access articles in the same venue).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0006.gif

We know from the Eysenck and Smith RAE outcome study in Psychology
(and from the Oppenheim studies in other disciplines) that the correlation
between RAE outcome and citation impact is about .90 (in Psychology).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0007.gif

We also know the 2001 RAE outcome, rank-ordering every department in every
university in the UK http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/submissions/ and we also
know the size of the funding and the funding difference associate with
each rank.

Hence it is very easy to take those rank orders, for each discipline,
and calculate -- based on that discipline's correlation between its
RAE rank and its citation impact -- the estimated income increase that
would arise from the rank increase induced by the impact increase
caused by open access!

In particular, it would be possible to illustrate how the rank order
would change if, for example, the research output of the lowest-ranked
department in each discipline became open-access, and gained a  2-fold,
3-fold, 4-fold, or 4.5-fold increase in impact (depending on how
close it came to the Lawrence 4.5 estimate -- which might itself be
an underestimate in some disciplines!). The RAE/impact correlation
would predict what rank that department would get, and the RAE/funding
correlation would predict how much more money that would translate into.

Obviously if *all* the articles in all disciplines suddenly became
open-access overnight, there would not be such a dramatic change in
rankings (though it would give some research a better fighting chance),
because all impact would simply be scaled up. (*Simply scaled up*! But
that in itself would represent a huge benefit to research progress and
productivity.)

But never mind that. We must appeal to our lower instincts, in trying
to persuade individual researchers and their institutions that open
access is in their interests. So the above data should be taken in
a first-come, first-served competitive spirit: Right now, it is
definitely not the case that *all* articles are open access. Almost all
are not. Nor is the transition happening overnight (as it could have done,
already a decade ago).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif

So the incentive to self-archive comes from the fact that those
who do it *now* stand the best chance of changing the relative
research impact-ranking (and hence the research funding) in their
favor: and the study I've sketched would estimate by just how much.
A dimensionless picture of the size of the increment is already
visible in:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.gif

The RAE data are open-access, so anyone can do this study. But I will try
to persuade the Southampton team to do it, in order to provide ammunition
for those who are hard at working trying to inform university
administrators and research funders about the benefits to be expected
from mandating open-access provision for all their research output.

[A slight correction to David Spurrett's query about the correlation between
>   "(a) the extent to which publications by authors at particular
>   institutions cited research materials available through open access,
>   with (b) their local institutional budget for expenditure on journals."
First, that's the wrong correlation. We've agreed it's not journal
budget expenditures that will persuade researchers to self-archive,
but research income. Second, we can already answer the question: That
correlation is zero, because the small existing volume of open-access
there is so far has not led to any toll-cancellations, in any discipline
(including Physics, where self-archiving and open-access are most advanced).
The correlation *might* change eventually, but that will not be a *cause* of
universal open access, but an *effect*:
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 ]

    Lawrence, S. (2001) Free online availability substantially
    increases a paper's impact. Nature Web Debates.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html

    Kurtz, Michael J.; Eichhorn, Guenther; Accomazzi, Alberto;
    Grant, Carolyn S.; Demleitner, Markus; Murray, Stephen S.;
    Martimbeau, Nathalie; Elwell, Barbara. (submitted) The NASA
    Astrophysics Data System: Sociology, Bibliometrics, and Impact.
    http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/jasis-abstract.html

    the forthcoming Schwartz et al. study
    http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0311&L=pamnet&D=1&O=D&P=1632

    the work of Andrew Odlyzko:
    http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/complete.html

    and Tim Brody's remarkable citebase usage and citation impact calculator
    http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search as well as his usage/citation
    impact correlator
    http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php
    which can predict later citation impact from earlier usage (download)
    impact using variable time-windows and ranges for the Physics ArXiv
    (you need the latest java to be able to use it) at:

    Smith, Andrew, & Eysenck, Michael (2002) "The correlation
    between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology," June 2002
    http://psyserver.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/citations.pdf

    Oppenheim, Charles (1995) The correlation between citation counts and
    the 1992 Research Assessment Exercises ratings for British library and
    information science departments, Journal of Documentation, 51:18-27.

    Oppenheim, Charles (1998) The correlation between
    citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise
    ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy
    and archaeology, Journal of Documentation, 53:477-87.
    http://dois.mimas.ac.uk/DoIS/data/Articles/julkokltny:1998:v:54:i:5:p:477-487.html

    Holmes, Alison & Oppenheim, Charles (2001) Use of citation analysis
    to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for
    Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management.
    http://www.shef.ac.uk/~is/publications/infres/paper103.html

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online
RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research
Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier.
Ariadne. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
    http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html
    http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
    Post discussion to: [log in to unmask]

Dual Open-Access Strategy:
    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
            journal whenever one exists.
    BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
            toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0021.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
February 2022
December 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
September 2020
October 2019
March 2019
February 2019
August 2018
February 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
September 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager