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 garfi...@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:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:13 PM To: sigmetr...@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 ---------- List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:11:59 +0100 From: "Garfield, Eugene" <garfi...@codex.cis.upenn.edu> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@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.] ______________________________________________________________________