1/ #SpringerNature just published a report showing certain download and citation benefits of "gold" #OpenAccess. (I'm linking to the executive summary.)
https://stories.springernature.com/from-access-to-impact-open-access-research/executive-summary/index.html
But it's very misleading, even dishonest, in one respect. It shows that #GoldOA articles are downloaded and cited more than non-OA articles. But it attributes this to the fact that they are gold OA (charging #APCs), not to the fact that they are OA. Because it didn't test no-APC or #DiamondOA journals, attributing the download and citation benefits to the APC business model is unjustified and deceptive.
It also says that the gold OA model supports "greater equity" because it allows more downloads than non-OA models in low-income countries. But that kind of equity belongs to all flavors of OA. The report never mentions that APCs severely reduce equity by excluding authors who cannot afford to pay.
🧵
@petersuber
Re "greater equity" as shown by more downloads than non-OA models in low-income countries.
Springer and Nature could just... remove the paywalls for IPs in LMICs. Or at least for IPs of Research4Life registered institutions, instead of requiring credentials.