It is interesting that� Molecular Biology of the Cell has become
the�poster child for the OA movement?� Below, Peter Suber uses MBC and
its decision to make access available for free after two months as
evidence for the benefits of OA.� I would agree that the advocacy for OA
by MBC and its sponsoring Society, ASCB, did increase the visibility of
the journal and likely contributed to the increase in submission.� It
might have also contributed to the increased impact factor since
visibility does increase the number of eyeballs viewing the content of
the journal, leading to an increase in citations.� However, I do not
think one can correlate an increase in subscriptions to the journal's OA
policy.� First of all, one must recognize that MBC is a relatively new
journal, having been founded in 1990.� As knowledge of the journal has
increased, additional institutions have decided to subscribe to the
journal.� However, the subscription data regularly distributed by ASCB to
Congress and others� to demonstrate that OA after 2 months does not
negatively impact subscriptions actually misrepresents the data.� The
11,000+ subscriptions that are represented in the graph, which grew
significantly over a period of time, actually includes both member and
institutional subscriptions.� The slope of the line more closely
parallels the membership growth of the Society, not the subscription
growth.�Lila Gutterman, The Chronicle of Higher Education, asked Gary
Ward, ASCB, for a clarification of the data, but he did not provide it.�
Indeed, when I have asked ASCB for disaggregated data, showing member and
institutional subscriptions separately, they have been unwilling to
provide the information.� Until that data is provided, Peter really
should not be using MBC as the poster child for the movement.� Combining
membership growth, and therefore member subscriptions, with institutional
subscriptions, can be used to demonstrate that 2 months or 12 months will
have no impact on subscriptions.� In reality,� most of us differentiate
the two�types of subscriptions to obtain a clear indication of the impact
of our free access policies.
Martin Frank, Ph.D.
Executive Director, American Physiological Society
9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991
Tel; 301-634-7118�� fax:301-634-7241
email: mfrank_at_the-aps.org
APS Home Page:
http://www.the-aps.org
...integrating the life sciences from molecule to organism!
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:21 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Mandated Self-Archiving and the "Open Choice" Option (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:57:45 -0400
From: Peter Suber <peters_at_earlham.edu>
Subject: Re: Mandated Self-Archiving and the "Open Choice" Option
> > Perhaps I should have prefaced the question with a recitation and
> > recognition of the fact that while the purpose is not to help
publishers
> > -- nonetheless, what I'm asking is, are there any such benefits to
> > be realized; have you formulated any indirect benefits that may be
> > anticipated?
>
>I believe I replied to that:
>
> (2) benefits to publishers in the form of increased
> visibility and impact for their journals, which can also draw more
> subscribers and more authors.
>
>There has been reported evidence of both of these. (Perhaps others will
>be able to cite the sources.)
Here's one bit of evidence.� When _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ adopted
the policy to provide OA to all its articles within two months of
publication (a comparatively short embargo), it saw both its submissions
and its subscriptions increase.�� It's impact factor apparently rose as
well.� The editor's only explanation is the increased visibility of the
journal.� Here's the interview in which she discusses it.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6
The cause of this effect wasn't self-archiving, but it's clearly
equivalent
to self-archiving at a rate of 100% after a two month delay.
����� Peter Suber
Received on Mon Jul 03 2006 - 23:24:23 BST