|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Go open access and increase your impact
PLoS this month again shows us that Open Access is the wave of the future. This time, it's a cohort study of papers showing that Open Access (OA) articles are more frequently cited than non-OA articles (even in the same journal - if you consider PNAS a legitimate journal), even when you control for confounding variables like number of authors, authors' lifetime publication count, country of origin, funding source etc., were controlled for.
The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 [SD = 2.5] versus 1.2 [SD = 2.0]; Z = 3.123; p = 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 [SD = 10.4] versus 4.5 [SD = 4.9]; Z = 4.058; p < 0.001). In a logistic regression model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio = 2.1 [1.5-2.9]) in the first 4-10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5-5.5) 10-16 mo after publication (October 2005). I really think OA is the future of scientific publication. For one, congress is going to force the issue anyway, once they decide publicly-funded research deserves to be seen by the public, second, examples abound that OA publications lead to more people reading and citing your publication, which is what is most important to scientists anyway. Go PLoS! |
7 Comments:
I agree.
It is unfortunate that the prestige of the closed-access journals will keep scientists using them until the research sponsors force a change.
2:35 PM, May 17, 2006
They will not remain so for long. Two Republicans are sponsoring a bill to make all NIH-funded research open-access after 6 months.
It is quite likely it will succeed.
12:45 AM, May 18, 2006
It is better than that: your articles says this bipartisan bill extends to all the major US funding agencies. Nice.
3:21 PM, May 18, 2006
No one picked up on my joke about 2 republicans. Saddening.
7:43 PM, May 18, 2006
Sorry! Liberals say such bizarre things that it is always hard for me to know when they are joking.
Liberals do have the same problem. For example, this blog has a Coulter vs. Hitler comparison that doesn't seem to recognize that Ann's writing is motivated by a witty sense of humor while poor Adolph suffers in anger and frustration.
2:14 PM, May 19, 2006
Ok Jim,
You have no more credibility.
Coulter is not witty, nor does she come across as humorous. She is an admitted fascist. Everything about her is creepy and wrong, and I can think of nothing less funny than suggesting we convert the middle east to christianity by the sword or that liberals should be shot.
Feel free to find another liberal blog.
2:40 PM, May 19, 2006
The Daily Show hired a "Senior Child Molestation Expert" who advocated axe murders.
I hope that you will have the common decency to condemn this!
(Of course, if it was a joke, then never mind.)
3:01 PM, May 19, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home