Citation analysis of author-choice OA journals

[Phil Davis]

Stevan,

Because of the sheer number of articles published by PNAS, tracking the 
performance of each article was considered too onerous.  As a result, I 
tracked the first and last 6-month cohort of articles (June-Dec 2004; 
and June-Dec 2006).  By choosing the first and last cohort, I could 
estimate a temporal trend in the data.  Please remember that PNAS was 
only one of the 11 journals analyzed in this study, and that Gunter 
Eysenbach’s study (PLoS Biology, 2006) analyzed only a 6-month cohort in 
one journal (PNAS, June-Dec, 2006).  Granted, a full dataset from PNAS 
would have been ideal, and I encourage you to gather and share the 
intervening years if you feel that the missing data points would change 
significantly the results of this study.  My sense is that they won’t, 
but will challenge you to prove me wrong.


Stevan Harnad wrote:
> (3) How does the fact that the overall sample was small and the PNAS 
> sample was large justify that the entire PNAS data-set was not 
> analyzed? (I don't contest that it should be analyzed  (i) within the 
> aggregate as well as (ii) separately, and that (iii) the rest should 
> also be analyzed separately too, to avoid skewing, I just don't 
> understand why the full analyses were not done and their results 
> reported.)
>
-- 
Philip M. Davis
PhD Student
Department of Communication
336 Kennedy Hall
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
email: pmd8 at cornell.edu
phone: 607 255-4735
https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/~pmd8/resume