职业编辑出版人，开放存取倡导者分享http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/wangykVisiting Scholar at University of Minnesota,PhD at Peking University, Bachelor & Master Degree at Northwest A&F University
A. 高能物理学研究人员的确从1991年开始自愿（非强制的，而计算机科学家甚至更早做开放仓储）提供开放存取。但在随后的岁月里，尽管在所有学科中反复证实绿色开放存取的影响优势，自愿跟随做开放存取的唯一其他学科只有经济学。尽管还有更多的表明开放存取可以增加影响的证据颇受欢迎，但仍然不足以引导足够多的研究者提供开放存取。只有来自其机构和基金资助机构的强制存档要求才能确保他们进行开放存取。
B. 事实上，当有绿色开放存取版本后，用户比较喜欢访问绿色OA版本，而不再阅读期刊了，但这决不表明期刊已经不再必要了。期刊是（过去一直是）必需的同行评审服务提供者和证实者，他们仍旧是。这种重要的功能是必不可少的。高能物理学研究人员如同过去所做的一样仍然一如既往的给同行评审的期刊投稿。他们在arXiv中既仓储未经同行评审的预印本，也存储经过同行评审的后印本（连同期刊参考文献）。
C. 尽管还没有被系统的证实，可能在高能物理学和天体物理学领域期刊的买得起/访问引用问题没有许多其他学那么严重。开放存取的重要功能就是提供给那些买不起期刊的读者快速访问途经。因此，在高能物理学领域，提早访问影响优势源自在提供出版的版本之前先提供预印本开放存取——与大多数其它学科一样，自动转化成开放存取影响优势，因为如果没有开放存取许多潜在的用户即使在证实出版之后都没有访问途经，因而也不能对增加论文的影响做任何贡献。
D. 几乎没有人质疑金色OA比绿色OA取提供更大的开放存取优势。OA优势就是OA优势，不论是绿色还是金色。只是发生在通过期刊之内比较（绿色与非绿色的论文）和期刊之间（金色与非金色的期刊）的比较，更容易和更严密的检验和证明罢了。
This is an important study, and most of its conclusions are valid:
(1) Making research papers open access (OA) dramatically increases their impact.
(2) The earlier that papers are made OA, the greater their impact.
(3) High Energy Physics (HEP) researchers were among the first to make their papers OA (since 1991, and they did it without needing to be mandated to do it!)
(4) Gold OA provides no further impact advantage over and above Green OA.
However, the following caveats need to be borne in mind, in interpreting this paper:
(a) HEP researchers have indeed been providing OA since 1991, unmandated (and computer scientists have been doing so since even earlier). But in the ensuing years, the only other discipline that has followed suit, unmandated, has been economics, despite the repeated demonstration of the Green OA impact advantage across all disciplines. So whereas still further evidence (as in this paper by Gentil-Beccot et al) confirming that OA increases impact is always very welcome, that evidence will not be sufficient to induce enough researchers to provide OA; only mandates from their institutions and funders can ensure that they do so.
(b) From the fact that when there is a Green OA version available, users prefer to consult that Green OA version rather than the journal version, it definitely does not follow that journals are no longer necessary. Journals are (and always were) essentially peer-review service-providers and cerifiers, and they still are. That essential function is indispensable. HEP researchers continue to submit their papers to peer-reviewed journals, as they always did; and they deposit both their unrefereed preprints and then their refereed postprints in arxiv (along with the journal reference). None of that has changed one bit.
(c) Although it has not been systematically demonstrated, it is likely that in fields like HEP and astrophysics, the journal affordability/accessibility problem is not as great as in many other fields. OA's most important function is to provide immediate access to those who cannot afford access to the journal version. Hence the Early Access impact advantage in HEP -- arising from making preprints OA well before the published version is available -- translates, in the case of most other fields, into the OA impact advantage itself, because without OA many potential users simply do not have access even after publication, hence cannot make any contribution to the article's impact.
(d) Almost no one has ever argued (let alone adduced evidence) that Gold OA provides a greater OA advantage than Green OA. The OA advantage is the OA advantage, whether Green or Gold. (It just happens to be easier and more rigorous to test and demonstrate the OA advantage through within-journal comparisons [i.e Green vs. non-Green articles] than between-journal comparisons [Gold vs. non-Gold journals].)
ABSTRACT: Contemporary scholarly discourse follows many alternative routes in addition to the three-century old tradition of publication in peer-reviewed journals. The field of High- Energy Physics (HEP) has explored alternative communication strategies for decades, initially via the mass mailing of paper copies of preliminary manuscripts, then via the inception of the first online repositories and digital libraries.
This field is uniquely placed to answer recurrent questions raised by the current trends in scholarly communication: is there an advantage for scientists to make their work available through repositories, often in preliminary form? Is there an advantage to publishing in Open Access journals? Do scientists still read journals or do they use digital repositories?
The analysis of citation data demonstrates that free and immediate online dissemination of preprints creates an immense citation advantage in HEP, whereas publication in Open Access journals presents no discernible advantage. In addition, the analysis of clickstreams in the leading digital library of the field shows that HEP scientists seldom read journals, preferring preprints instead....
...
...arXiv was first based on e-mail and then on the web, becoming the first repository and the first “green” Open Access5 platform... With the term “green” Open Access we denote the free online availability of scholarly publications in a repository. In the case of HEP, the submission to these repositories, typically arXiv, is not mandated by universities or funding agencies, but is a free choice of authors seeking peer recognition and visibility... The results of an analysis of SPIRES data on the citation behaviour of HEP scientists is presented... demonstrat[e] the “green” Open Access advantage in HEP... With the term “gold” Open Access we denote the free online availability of a scholarly publication on the web site of a scientific journals.... There is no discernable citation advantage added by publishing articles in “gold” Open Access journals...
...
Conclusions
Scholarly communication is at a cross road of new technologies and publishing models. The analysis of almost two decades of use of preprints and repositories in the HEP community provides unique evidence to inform the Open Access debate, through four main findings:
1. Submission of articles to an Open Access subject repository, arXiv, yields a citation advantage of a factor five.
2. The citation advantage of articles appearing in a repository is connected to their dissemination prior to publication, 20% of citations of HEP articles over a two-year period occur before publication.
3. There is no discernable citation advantage added by publishing articles in “gold” Open Access journals.
4. HEP scientists are between four and eight times more likely to download an article in its preprint form from arXiv rather than its final published version on a journal web site.
Taken together these findings lead to three general conclusions about scholarly communication in HEP, as a discipline that has long embraced green Open Access:
1. There is an immense advantage for individual authors, and for the discipline as a whole, in free and immediate circulation of ideas, resulting in a faster scientific discourse.
2. The advantages of Open Access in HEP come without mandates and without debates. Universal adoption of Open Access follows from the immediate benefits for authors.
3. Peer-reviewed journals have lost their role as a means of scientific discourse, which has effectively moved to the discipline repository.
HEP has charted the way for a possible future in scholarly communication to the full benefit of scientists, away from over three centuries of tradition centred on scientific journals. However, HEP peer-reviewed journals play an indispensable role, providing independent accreditation, which is necessary in this field as in the entire, global, academic community. The next challenge for scholarly communication in HEP, and for other disciplines embracing Open Access, will be to address this novel conundrum. Efforts in this direction have already started, with initiatives such as SCOAP3...
