COMMENTARY ON：引用和阅读高能物理的行为（arXiv：0906.5418）
COMMENTARY ON: Citing and Reading Behavours in High-Energy Physics (arXiv:0906.5418)
摘要：
证实开放式获取增加影响的证据不足以吸引足够的研究人员提供开放式获取;只有来自其机构和资助者的授权才能确保这一点。HEP的研究人员继续向同行评审的期刊提交论文，就像他们一直做的那样，存放他们未经评审的预印本和经过评审的后印本。这一切都没有改变。在HEP和天体物理学等领域，期刊的可负担性/可访问性问题并不像其他许多领域那样严重，在这些领域，HEP的抢先体验影响优势转化为OA影响优势本身。几乎没有人认为黄金OA比绿色OA提供更大的OA优势。OA优势就是OA优势，无论是绿色还是金色。
英文摘要：
Evidence confirming that OA increases impact will not be sufficient to induce enough researchers to provide OA; only mandates from their institutions and funders can ensure that. HEP researchers continue to submit their papers to peer-reviewed journals, as they always did, depositing both their unrefereed preprints and their refereed postprints. None of that has changed. In fields like HEP and astrophysics, the journal affordability/accessibility problem is not as great as in many other fields, where it the HEP Early Access impact advantage translates into the OA impact advantage itself. Almost no one has ever argued that Gold OA provides a greater OA advantage than Green OA. The OA advantage is the OA advantage, whether Green or Gold.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
