Early citation advantage?

[K.S. Chudamani]

Citation has many flaws. May be a subject of current or potential interest
may get more citations where as low interest areas may get low citations
how to balance these two. May be by defininf a variable which divides low
impact articles cited by their subject impact factors which may have  to
be defined

Chudamani

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Ian Rowlands wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> Thanks for that Stephen, I guess, having thought about it a bit more
> that there
> are semantic problems here.  In the case of a gold OA journal vs a traditional
> tolled journal, I would be hard pressed to see a plausible cause and
> effect for
> an early OA citation advantage. If anyone could advise on this I would be very
> grateful.
>
> Perhaps this is an issue specific to the green OA route.  If I finish a paper
> today and seek publication through a traditional tolled journal and take no
> further action, I might well expect to see it published and date stamped in
> 2007.  If I self- or institutionally archive the preprint, that version would
> be date stamped today, 2006.  That version might well be cited, giving me an
> apparent advantage over peers in the same issue who did not archive.  This
> might explain the claimed temporal advantage.
>
> It might also be an argument FOR PUBLISHERS to encourage self-archiving
> to help
> to up their ISI immediacy index (but it would only work in cases where the
> formal publication happened to fall in the next calendar year).
>
> Certainly your suggestion of comparing immediacy indexes for sets of (gold) IA
> and tolled articles would be very interesting.
>
> Ian
>
> Quoting Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at LSU.EDU>:
>
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > If you can define a large enough subject set covered by the SCI or SSCI JCR
> > and containing large enough subsets of both "tolled access" journals and
> > "open access" journals, I would suggest some sort of comparison of means
> > test on the immediacy indexes of the two subsets.
> >
> > SB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Rowlands <i.rowlands at UCL.AC.UK>@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 06/21/2006
> > 01:17:24 PM
> >
> > Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> >       <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> >
> > Sent by:    ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> >       <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> >
> >
> > To:    SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> > cc:     (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU)
> >
> > Subject:    [SIGMETRICS] Early citation advantage?
> >
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > Several recent studies (e.g. Thomson Scientific, Eysenbach) have indicated
> > that
> > open access articles are more likely to be cited sooner than tolled access
> > articles.  This is an argument that, on the face of it, provides a powerful
> > argument for open access: it speeds up scientific workflow.  Can anyone
> > supply
> > a testable hypothesis for this?  I can quite easily understand how open
> > access
> > leads to MOPE use, thus higher citation.  But speedier citation?  What are
> > the
> > plausible cause and effect arguments here?
> >
> > Ian Rowlands
> > UCL Centre for Publishing
> > www.publishing.ucl.ac.uk
> >
>
>
>
> Dr Ian Rowlands
> Director of Research, UCL Centre for Publishing
> www.publishing.ucl.ac.uk
>