A new type of post from us today, offering a smorgasbord of opinions on topics including the ongoing Twitter/Elon Musk saga, just what “equitable access” to the literature means, the ongoing lack of experimental controls in one area of bibliometric analysis, and whether journals are more like a gate or a sewer.
Scientific authorship comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. If authors are unwilling to explain their work, editors must step up to defend their journal.
Observational studies claiming an open access citation advantage just keep coming, despite problems in reproducibility and a lack of adequate controls. Are we in for a similar literature on the subject of the impact of social media on readership and citation?
If a free website claimed that you could double citations to your papers simply by uploading them to their file sharing network, would you believe it? Or would you check their data?
Why can’t researchers agree on whether Open Access is the cause of more citations or merely associated with better performing papers? The answer is in the methods.
A study by two respected economists suggests it may be time to admit that we made a mistake attributing a citation advantage to open access articles.
A new article suggests that institutional self-archiving mandates may benefit authors . . . if you ignore some inconsistent and inconvenient results.
When it comes to downloads and citations, position in the arXiv matters, a new study finds.
Freely-accessible articles are cited more frequently, but open access is not the cause, a new study reports.
Two Swiss economists claim that the supposed Open Access citation advantage can be explained by self-selection and recommend authors save their research dollars.
A new paper describes why early papers get big returns on citations. Fortunately, it is not a case of winner-takes-all.
Position in a daily arXiv email report can determine future citations. A German physicist struggles to determine why.