Re: RECENT MANUAL MEASUREMENTS OF OA AND OAA

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Even accurate data can be interpreted in diverse ways. If it were 
determined that there is a high incidence of OA, this could be used by 
supporters to the conclusion that it has unstoppable momentum, the 
conclusion that there is immediate need to arrest its further progress, or 
to the conclusion that the problem has been solved.

Similarly, inaccurate data can also be used for projections that are true, 
because the data happens to be right by accident. Personally, I think 
likely there might be a good deal of published data on OAA that might fall 
into that category.

There is no disagreement that more data is needed on this and other 
related subjects, and that it be publicly available and then tested and 
confirmed by others.

I believe that other groups who have worked on OAA know the need to obtain 
better data--they have outlined the further work they plan, and if I were 
continuing to work on this aspect of the topic, I would do much the same.

I could ask Joe and others who disagree with the OA proponents: why did 
you never test the data-- or did you perhaps test it and fail to 
disseminate it?

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library

dgoodman@liu.edu

----- Original Message -----

> David Goodman and his colleagues are to be commended for their work.  I 
> agree with David on few points, but I admire the integrity of someone 
> who describes himself as an OA "absolutist" and then proceeds to do 
> hisresearch the old-fashioned way, with a cold eye and careful attention 
> to the data.
>
> Joe Esposito