Quality Advantage, Competitive Advantage, and the Rationale for Open Access

---

Update Jan 1, 2010: See Gargouri, Y; C Hajjem, V Larivière, Y Gingras, L Carr,T Brody & S Harnad (2010) “Open Access, Whether Self-Selected or Mandated, Increases Citation Impact, Especially for Higher Quality Research”
Update Feb 8, 2010: See also "Open Access: Self-Selected, Mandated & Random; Answers & Questions"

---

---

SUMMARY: The five most probable causal factors underlying the positive correlation between OA and research impact (as listed in: "Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web") are:
Early Advantage (EA): Self-archiving preprints before publication increases citations (higher-quality articles benefit more)
Quality Advantage (QA): Self-archiving postprints upon publication increases citations (higher-quality articles benefit more)
Usage Advantage (UA): Self-archiving increases downloads (higher-quality articles benefit more)
(Competitive Advantage [CA]): OA/non-OA advantage (CA disappears at 100% OA)
(Quality Bias [QB]): Higher-quality articles are self-selectively self-archived more (QB disappears at 100% OA)
The primary rationale for OA is to maximize research usage and impact. Most basic research output will never be used in teaching and, apart from health-relevant findings, most basic research output will never be sought for reading by the general public. Nor is the need for accessibility to science journalists the primary rationale for OA, otherwise publishers could simply agree to the compromise of making their online sites freely accessible to designated journalists. Nor is OA needed for the sake of accessibility to bloggers: The important bloggings about research will come from researchers themselves, in the form of Open Peer Commentary, and are part of the Early Advantage (EA). About 10% of articles receive about 90% of all citations. This means that the most useful articles are used most. It is also the most useful articles that benefit most from OA (the Quality Advantage: QA). The competitive advantage (CA) will disappear at 100% OA, but today, when we are still only at around 15% OA, the competitive advantage is an especially important incentive to self-archive and to mandate OA self-archiving. Once OA is at 100% and the competitive advantage is all gone, there will be a level playing field, with what is used and cited being determined solely by its intrinsic quality and usefulness (QA, UA), no longer constrained by the affordability and accessibility of the journal in which it is published, as now. Hence it is the enhancement of research usage and impact, and thereby research productivity and progress, that is the strongest rationale for OA.

---

In the August CTWatch, Paul Ginsparg wrote:

PG: "Studies have shown a correlation between openly accessible materials and citation impact, though a direct causal link is more difficult to establish, and other mechanisms accounting for the effect are easily imagined."

The causal mechanisms underlying the positive correlation between OA and research impact are not only imaginable, but the five most probable causal contributors have already been repeatedly itemized. Indeed, they were listed in another article in the same CTWatch issue: "Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web":

OA Advantage (OAA) = EA + QA + UA + (CA) + (QB)

EA: Early Advantage: Self-archiving preprints before publication increases citations (higher-quality articles benefit more)

QA: Quality Advantage: Self-archiving postprints upon publication increases citations (higher-quality articles benefit more)

UA: Usage Advantage: Self-archiving increases downloads (higher-quality articles benefit more)

(CA: Competitive Advantage): OA/non-OA advantage (CA disappears at 100% OA)

(QB: Quality Bias): Higher-quality articles are self-selectively self-archived more (QB disappears at 100% OA)

PG: "It is worthwhile to note, however, that even if some articles currently receive more citations by virtue of being open access, it doesn't follow that the benefit would continue to accrue through widespread expansion of open access publication."

Worthwhile to note, and already noted (see above: CA). However, the "widespread expansion to open access" has not yet taken place, and that's the point! OA is still hovering somewhere around 15% overall. The urgent and substantive item on the agenda concerns how to make it take place. And the competitive advantage is one of those incentives. (So are EA, QA, and UA.)

(Note also that the objective of OA is OA itself, not necessarily or primarily OA publication ["Gold OA"]. 100% OA can be achieved via "Green OA" self-archiving of non-OA publications, and that is what OA mandates by research funders and universities are aiming for. Green OA is entirely in the hands of the research community, and can be accelerated and ensured through Green OA mandates. Gold OA is largely in the hands of publishers, cannot be mandated, and can and will take care of itself, if need be, after OA itself has been achieved, through Green OA and Green OA mandates.)

PG: "Indeed, once the bulk of publication is moved to open access, then whatever relative boost might be enjoyed by early adopters would long since have disappeared, with relative numbers of citations once again determined by the usual independent mechanisms."

About 90% of citations are accorded to about 10% of articles. Roughly speaking, this means that the most useful articles are used most, and that they are approximately the top 10%. It is also the most useful articles that benefit from OA the most. The correlation is between citation counts and probability of being OA: OA cannot help unuseful articles get used more, though it can unearth occasional neglected gems that are published in obscure and little-subscribed-to journals.

It is also true that the top 10% of articles are more likely to be published in the top 10% of journals, which are also the most widely subscribed-to -- hence the most accessible -- journals. But even so, they are not accessible to all their potential users, because most universities can only afford to subscribe to a small fraction of journals.

Hence, even after all research is OA, and the competitive advantage is all gone, the distribution of usage and citations will not simply be "once again determined by the usual independent mechanisms." There will now be a level playing field, with what is used and cited being determined solely by its quality and usefulness (QA, UA), no longer constrained by the affordability and accessibility of the journal in which it published, as now. And the beneficiary will be the entire research cycle, its productivity and its progress.

PG: "Citation impact per se is consequently not a serious argument for encouraging more authors to adopt open access publication."

Not only is impact enhancement a serious argument to authors for providing OA (not necessarily Gold OA publication!) to their published articles, but it is the strongest argument for OA: Either OA does increase research usage, hence its productivity and progress, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there is little remaining rationale for OA: Teaching? Maybe, but how much of primary research output will ever be used and useful for teaching? Public access? For things like health-relevant findings, yes, but how much of primary research output will ever be used or useful for public reading?

PG: "A different potential impact and benefit to the general public, on the other hand, is the greater ease with which science journalists and bloggers can write about and link to open access articles."

If the primary rationale for OA were accessibility to science journalists, the OA movement would be dead in the water. Instead of making the annual 2.5 million articles in the 25,000 journals across all disciplines and languages OA, publishers could simply agree to the compromise of making their online sites freely accessible to designated journalists. End of story. No need for IRs, no need for self-archiving, no need for Green OA mandates (and of course no need for Gold OA publication).

As to bloggers: As with everything else, most of what they blog is not of interest to most. The important bloggings about research will come from researchers themselves, in the form of Open Peer Commentary, and will simply be part of the Early Advantage (EA) of OA, which is yet another contributor to the OA usage/impact advantage, the primary "serious" and scalable rationale for OA.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum