[Sally Morris objected:] "The problem is, there is no evidence of correlation between citations and the return on research expenditure."
[Harnad replied:] Citations are one direct, face-valid measure of return on research expenditure. Research is funded in order to be applied and built-upon, i.e., to be used; citations are an index of that usage. Uncited, unused research may as well not have been conducted, and represents no return on the research investment. Whatever increases usage and citations, increases the return on the research investment. Any loss of such a potential increase is a loss of potential return on the research investment. Self-archiving increases citations 50%-250%. Hence the failure to self-archive loses 50%-250% of the potential return on the research investment....
[Morris:] "Clearly, we are a long way off being able to analyse whether or not self-archiving (or any other form of open access) does or does not contribute to these objective output measures."
[Harnad:] I thought the question was about whether citation counts are correlated with these measures. We already know that self-archiving is correlated with increased citation counts.
(PS: For the studies showing the correlation to which Harnad refers, see Steve Hitchcock's excellent bibliography.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 10/06/2005 10:02:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
