Talk:Open access citation advantage

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open access citation advantage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Bias Against Books?

Do Wikipedia editors have a bias against books? It seems that way to me, but maybe that is because I live very near a major city free library, and I have a lot of books myself. I have been using older books in articles about early Philadelphia men, buildings, and institutions. I see plenty of inline citations for online sources, and only a few for books.

Are there any statistics on citations here by source?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the bias is against getting away from the screen and into a library, not against books. I think there are some perhaps-not-academic studies suggesting that the average Wikipedia editor is male (80%) and 28 years old. That explains a lot, IMO. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth bias

Does anyone know if this effect harms academics (or other people) in developing countries more than in wealthy countries? I'm asking because of the effects on Wikipedia: your favorite web search engine will find information online about even the most unimportant American school or tiny medical office, but finding information about very large high schools or regional hospitals in developing countries can be quite difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online research versus offline research

The suggestion that 'online research is becoming easier and less time consuming than offline research' is absurd, sorry, misleading. Online research is just incomplete research, pure and simple. Such a contentious statement, without reference of course, has no place in this WP article on Futon Bias. I will delete that suggestion asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuth21 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit is reasonable, but the old text wasn't nearly as terrible as you make it out to be. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you and point well taken. The term 'absurd' was too strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuth21 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and the FUTON Bias

As an intersting aside: Wikipedia has been described as the 'the ultimate exponent of FUTON bias'! http://occamstypewriter.org/trading-knowledge/2011/03/22/wikipedia-is-quite-engaging/ [first comment by Guy Chapman]. I am not so sure, but there it is (the claim). Makes one proud (if the claim is true) to be a dabbling Wikipedian Sleuth21 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to make same statement. I found it to be ironic that a website based on 'verifiable sources' need to point out about the (under)used of sources which is locked behind paywall Hyoroemon2 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it makes sense. If you can't read the source, how are you supposed to verify it? And unlike a research paper, nobody is going to fork out their own money for a Wikipedia article since they're not getting paid to write them. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman quote

'Conversely, Gilman notes that articles in expensive journals are "priced out of evidence"[...]': Why conversely? Doesn't Gilman confirm the FUTON Bias? Sleuth21 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an actual bias?

Is there an actual documented systemic bias in FUTON vs paywalled studies? IMO a researcher depending on FUTON studies would end up on average (across a lot of meta-studies) with the same results as one with access to paywalled studies, but would have to work with a larger uncertainty in results of individual meta-studies. That doesn't constitute a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.121.27 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "FUTON bias" seems to be used by a subset of the sources presented by the article. Other sources would just call this the "open access citation advantage" (most recently https://peerj.com/articles/4375/ ). The latter term seems to be at least one order of magnitude more common, so the articles may need to be renamed. --Nemo 19:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated term, merge or rename and expand

I agree with @Nemo bis entry is dated. Very few citation studies mention this term. The entry could be renamed "Open access citation advantage" and expanded. Or, more likely, merged with Open access or Citation impact or Publication bias. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it is a term for a concept converged in different words elsewhere. A mention of the term in a broader article is sufficient. Word choice varies greatly over time and field. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Open access citation advantage" does seem to be much more widely used, so renaming this article sounds good. None of the proposed articles are good merge candidates, and I don't see a reason to get rid of this article. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]