Hopeful Ad Hoc Critiques of OA Study After OA Study: Will Wishful Thinking Ever Wane?

As noted by the blogger, this post is a “Comment on Elsevier Editors' Update by Henk Moed: ‘Does Open Access publishing increase citation rates? Studies conducted in this area have not yet adequately controlled for various kinds of sampling bias.’" “No study based on sampling and statistical significance-testing has the force of an unassailable mathematical proof. But how many studies showing that OA articles are downloaded and cited more have to be published before the ad hoc critiques (many funded and promoted by an industry not altogether disinterested in the outcome!) and the special pleading tire of the chase? There are a lot more studies to try to explain away here. Most of them just keep finding the same thing... (By the way, on another stubborn truth that keeps bouncing back despite untiring efforts to say it isn't so: Not only is OA research indeed downloaded and cited more -- as common sense would expect, since it accessible free for all, rather than just to those whose institutions can afford a subscription -- but requiring (mandating) OA self-archiving does indeed increase OA self-archiving. Where on earth did Henk get the idea that some institutions' self-archiving ‘did not increase when their OA regime was transformed from non-mandatory into mandatory’? Or is Henk just referring to the ‘mandates’ that state that ‘You must self-archive -- but only if and when your publisher says you may, and not if your publisher says 'you may if you may but you may not if you must'"...? Incredulous? See here and weep (for the credulous -- or chuckle for the sensible)...)