Open access the equal of traditional publishing in high quality peer reviewed content
Citing findings from BioMed Central (@BioMedCentral), Science Daily reports that open access publishing is the equal of traditional publishing when it comes to high quality peer reviewed articles.
One way of measuring quality is by impact factors calculated from citation data (how many times other scientists have mentioned the research). Bo-Christer Björk from Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, and David Solomon from Michigan State University compared the impact factors of 610 open access journals and over 7000 subscription journals.
The citation rate for subscription journals was overall 30% higher than for open access ones but this difference was largely due to a high share of older OA journals, particularly from regions like Latin America in the citation indexes. When like was compared with like, for instance, journals founded after 2000 from difference regions or disciplines, the differences disappeared.
Per Bo-Christer Björk:
The open access debate has included accusations from some traditional publishers and their lobbyists that Open Access publishing implies low scientific quality and endangers the quality assurance function of the peer review system that the academic community and publishers have built up over decades.
If you take into account the journal discipline, location of publisher and age of publication the differences in impact between open access and subscription journals largely disappear. In medicine and health, open access journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving on average as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same time.
The same open access versus traditional subscription publishing argument is playing out in the law. On primary research the likes of Justia and Fastcase are giving lawyers free and low cost access to case law, codes, and regulations. On law reviews and secondary resources, we’re seeing law professors and practicing lawyers turn to blogging and other online publishing, as opposed having their writings published in periodicals and law reviews. (see Blogs to replace law reviews)
Like science and medicine peer review and quality can measured by citation. How many times was your content linked to and shared by leading authorities? Linking and sharing via the web could arguably be more democratic and accurate than traditional publishing as its not influenced by the interests of the large legal publishers.
No question we are going to hear that only traditional legal publishers are equipped lawyers the quality lawyers need. But if the scientific community in Europe is any guide, that argument is not going to hold water.
Image courtesy of Flicker contributor, AJ Cann.