Yet Another "OA" Study Comparing Apples and Fruit?

[Bosman, J.M.]

I can confirm this. Green OA disregarded. But the finding that libre journals provide better info on their retractions stands.

Jeroen Bosman

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: vrijdag 3 januari 2014 3:04
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Yet Another "OA" Study Comparing Apples and Fruit?

Peterson, G. M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2428-2436.
Abstract: The author analyzes retracted biomedical literature to determine if open access and fee-for-access works differ in terms of the practice and effectiveness of retraction. Citation and content analysis were applied to articles grouped by accessibility (libre, gratis, and fee for access) for various bibliometric attributes. Open access literature does not differ from fee-for-access literature in terms of impact factor, detection of error, or change in postretraction citation rates. Literature found in the PubMed Central Open Access subset provides detailed information about the nature of the anomaly more often than less accessible works. Open access literature appears to be of similar reliability and integrity as the population of biomedical literature in general, with the added value of being more forthcoming about the nature of errors when they are identified.
I can't read the article because it wasn't OA -- but what was being compared here<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=(apples+OR+oranges+OR+conflate)+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>? I doubt it was OA vs non-OA articles. More likely it was articles in Gold OA journals vs articles in toll journals. But the articles in toll journals might have been Green OA<http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html>. And comparing Gold OA journal articles with toll journal articles is not comparing OA with non-OA. (And if you compare OA articles with non-OA articles<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013636>, you can't draw conclusions about journal impact factor, error detection rates or retraction rates.)

Stevan Harnad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140103/b2abc8e5/attachment.html>