Before anyone gets too excited about the tiny Goodman et al. test
result, may I suggest waiting a couple of weeks, when we will be
reporting the results of a far bigger and more accurate test of
the robot's accuracy?
Those who (for some reason) were hoping that the robot would
prove too inaccurate and that the findings on the OA advantage
would prove invalid may be disappointed with the outcome. I can
already say that overinterpretations of the tiny Goodman et al.
test as showing that the OA/OAA findings to date are "worthless"
are rather overstated even on the meagre evidence to date,
especially since two thirds of the published findings on the OA
citation advantage are not even robot-based!.
(This shrillness also seems to me to be trying to make rather
much out of having actually done rather little!)
As to the separate issue of how to treat the OA journal article
counts (as opposed to the counts for the self-archived non-OA
journal articles): We count it all, of course, but only use the
non-OA journal article counts in calculating the OA advantage,
because those are (necessarily) within-journal ratios, and
citation ratios of zero and infinity are meaningless. Think about
it.