“Institutional and subject repositories are excellent locations to make research outputs publicly accessible. Researchers can share their research with the public through a variety of alternative dissemination mechanisms, including Research Gate, Academia.edu and others. One of the best effective techniques to boost a research paper’s visibility and number of citations is through open-access (OA) publication, because it makes the study publicly accessible from the very beginning. Researchers can boost their visibility, preserve their work and make it available for use in the future by making all of their outputs publicly accessible. Ogunleye (2019) made a study on “Some determinants of visibility boost for research publications among early career educational researchers in southwest, Nigeria”. In this study, he described that the early career of educational researchers in Southwest Nigeria looked into some determinants (shared reference databases, research profiles, publishing in OA, self-archiving, publication metadata, researcher profiles and social media platforms) for boosting visibility of the publication. A structured questionnaire on factors determining publication boost (r = 0.81) was utilised to collect data, and multiple regression analysis and the Pearson’s correlation approach were employed to evaluate the data. A significant positive correlation between each of the following was discovered in the results: joint reference databases (r = 0.17), Publication metadata (r = 0.23), result profiles (r = 0.44), open-access publishing (r = 0.27), self-archiving (r = 0.52), social media networks (r = 0.43) and accessibility of published work are all positively correlated with each other. The six variables had a positive correlation with the publication visibility (R = 0.60), and they were responsible for 32.9% of the gains invisibility of early career researchers’ publications. Norman (2012) conducted a research on “Maximizing Journal Article Citation Online: Readers, Robots, and Research Visibility”. Then he explained that online academic publications with peer review provide numerous advantages for researchers. They can enhance an article’s popularity and publicity, connect someone’s research to the relevant web of existing literature rapidly and add other scholars’ attention who will use it, increasing the likelihood of it being used. Also provided five basic areas to make the literature more popular which are choosing a search engine-friendly title, writing of abstracts and introductions, making the article easy to find, using of media and links, dissemination of articles after publication and emphasised on increasing a piece of content’s prospects of future downloads, citations and visibility.”
“International Open Access Week is upon us, and Milner Library has some ideas to help you celebrate. Defined by Peter Suber as, “Digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions,” Open Access expands access to publications, increases the impact of scholarship (by number of citations, for example), ?speeds up the rate of research, ?promotes one’s profile as a public scholar?, is altruistic, contributes to materials that can be used in classrooms, and ensures compliance with funder mandates. As a partner in university research and creative activities, Milner Library is committed to supporting Open Access initiatives.
Despite the long list of benefits associated with Open Access, obstacles to adoption persist. Most notably, publishers often charge fees to publish open access, and many scholars don’t have the funding to pay sometimes exorbitant fees. Another concern is that Open Access publishers can be associated with predatory practices or less rigorous peer-review processes. Scholars need to publish their work in venues where it will reach the intended audience. Milner Library facilitates connecting researchers to their readers in two significant ways:
The first is by hosting an institutional repository (ISU ReD) that preserves the scholarly and creative outputs of University authors and artists. ISU ReD currently hosts four peer-reviewed, Open Access journals, conference proceedings, student and faculty research, and University documents.
The second is by negotiating Open Access agreements with scholarly publishers that cover the cost of Open Access publishing for University authors. Milner Library entered into its first Open Access agreement with Cambridge University Press in 2021 and has since added agreements with Annual Reviews, Company of Biologists, IGI Global, and Taylor & Francis. Upcoming agreements, set to be effective January 2024 include Association for Computing Machinery, American Chemical Society, Institute of Physics, and Sage Publications. Recent University scholarship that has benefited from these agreements is available in ISU ReD’s Open Access Publishing Support collection.
Beginning Monday, October 23, Milner librarians will be reaching out to Illinois State authors who have published their work open access with the offer to deposit it in ISU ReD. Research shows that more (copies of) publicly available full-text means more opportunities for access and impact. For example, a recent study found that “making OA copies of manuscripts available in self-archiving or ‘green’ repositories results in a positive citation effect.” ”
Sci-Hub has provided a popular, if illicit, access route to much of the scientific record. However, as Abdelghani Maddi discusses its relationship to genuine open access publication is problematic.
Abstract: Open access has presented a fresh challenge to the publishing and scholarly communication sectors with the start of the twenty-first century. For the previous two decades, libraries have struggled to keep their journal subscriptions at a level that will support their research and development efforts due to rising publication fees and a stable budget. In the interim, the Web’s ability to publish academic articles in the public domain has opened up new communication channels for the scientific community. Along with various OA techniques, supporting business models have been proposed. Authors have reviewed a number of recent studies to demonstrate the effect of open access on its use and citation in scholarly and research. According to studies, open access (OA) has a significant impact on scientific communication since it helps boost the citation impact of journals and makes scientific research more visible and accessible. The writers are optimistic about the future of OA.
“ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery, has announced it will transition its International Conference Proceedings Series (ICPS) to a fully Open Access (OA) publishing model beginning January 1, 2024. Making its ICPS program Open Access represents an important step in ACM’s comprehensive shift to full OA publication of all content in the ACM Digital Library, which is planned for completion by December 2025….
The ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (ICPS) provides a mechanism for publishing the contents of high-quality conferences, technical symposia and workshops in the ACM Digital Library, the world’s leading repository of computer science research, thereby increasing their visibility among the international computing community.
ACM has published more than 75,000 research papers in the ACM Digital Library (DL) from over 2,000 conferences through the ICPS program since it was established in 2002. All ICPS published articles appear in the DL and are assigned digital object identifiers (DOIs), enhancing discovery, enabling persistent reference linking and archiving in digital preservation repositories, all while ensuring perpetual access. Publication in the ACM DL ensures high visibility. The ACM DL averages over 4 million unique users from 195 countries every month. On average, users generate 4.4 million page views and 1.75 million downloads each month….”
We examine the impact of the U.S. Department of Energy’s open-access mandate
Scientific articles subject to the mandate were utilized on average 42% more in patents
Articles subject to the mandate were not cited more frequently by other academic papers
Small firms were the primary beneficiaries of the increased knowledge diffusion…”
Abstract: In higher education, international research collaboration functions as a visible mechanism of cooperation and competition, serving as a proxy for quality and academic excellence. Open universities use revolutionary education models but are not often associated with quality or academic excellence. To investigate the impact of international research collaboration by active researchers affiliated with open institutions, a bibliometrics analysis was conducted of three open universities and nine traditional, comparative universities between 2000 and 2022. The results indicate that research outputs that are open access, sponsored and funded, and developed with international coauthors have positive and statistically significant effects on citation counts. Moreover, international research collaboration significantly affects all universities, not just open institutions. The results conclude that researchers affiliated with open universities are only 4.3% less cited than their comparative peers, which is attributed to publication factors, research disciplines and subject areas, and journal characteristics. Findings are discussed and imply a strategic shift in the institutional functions and outputs of open universities as collaborative conduits of knowledge production and dissemination.
Abstract: This study report describes the qualitative part of the project “Open Access Effects – The influence of structural and author-specific factors on the impact of open access publications from various disciplines” (OASE). The aim of the project was to describe the transformation process from traditional to open access publishing with a bibliometric approach and to analyse existing (if applicable future) publishing strategies and conflicts in the context of open access. Related questions were discussed within three focus group interviews conducted online with researchers from 8 different disciplines and 14 different countries around the world. Interviewees were recruited from participants in a previous survey (Fraser, Mayr & Peters, 2021) and from registrations for a workshop held the day before. Mixed sampling approach (convenience and theoretical sampling) to contrast views from researchers of different career status, discipline and resident country. Group size: 7-8 participants. Interview length: approx. two hours each. Among the participants were PhD students (3), postdoctoral researchers (6) and professors (13). Nine participants had a natural science background and 13 had a social science background. They were located in 14 different countries. Following a mixed sampling procedure, two groups were formed in which career status, field of study and country of residence were contrasted, and one group in which senior researchers were predominantly represented in terms of career status.
Abstract: Biologists increasingly rely on computer code, reinforcing the importance of published code for transparency, reproducibility, training, and a basis for further work. Here we conduct a literature review examining temporal trends in code sharing in ecology and evolution publications since 2010, and test for an influence of code sharing on citation rate. We find that scientists are overwhelmingly (95%) failing to publish their code and that there has been no significant improvement over time, but we also find evidence that code sharing can considerably improve citations, particularly when combined with open access publication.
This mixed-methods study integrates bibliometric and altmetric investigation with a qualitative method in order to assess the prevalence and societal-impact of Open-Access (OA) publications, and to reveal the considerations behind researchers’ decision to publish articles in closed and open-access.
The bibliometric-altmetric study analyzed 584 OA and closed publications published between 2014 and 2019 by 40 Israeli researchers: 20 from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) and 20 from SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) discipline. We used a multistage cluster sampling method to select a representative sample for the STEM disciplines group (engineering, computer science, biology, mathematics, and physics), and for the SSH disciplines group (sociology, economics, psychology, political science, and history). Required data were extracted from Scopus and Unpaywall databases, and the PlumX-platform. Among the 40 researchers who were selected for the bibliometric-altmetric study, 20 researchers agreed to be interviewed for this study.
Comparing bibliometrics and altmetrics for the general publications did not reveal any significant differences between OA and closed publications. These were found only when comparing OA and closed publications across disciplines. STEM-researchers published 59 % of their publications in OA, compared to just 29 % among those in SSH, and they received significantly more bibliometric and altmetric citations from SSH OA publications and from their own closed-access publications. The altmetrics findings indicate that researchers are well acquainted and active in social media. However, according to the interviewees, there is no academic contribution for sharing research findings on social-media; it is viewed as a “public-service”. Researchers’ primary consideration for publishing in closed or OA was the journal impact-factor.
Our findings contribute to the increasing body of research that addresses OA citations and societal-impact advantages. The findings suggest the need to adopt an OA-policy after a thorough assessment of the consequences for SSH disciplines.
Open access (OA) publication is growing in total joint arthroplasty literature. While OA manuscripts are free to view, these publications require a fee from authors. This study aimed to compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and non-OA publications in the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature.
There were 9,606 publications included, with 4,669 (48.61%) as OA articles. The TKA articles were identified from 2016 to 2022 using a national database. Articles were grouped as OA or non-OA and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a weighted count of social media attention, and the Mendeley readership were analyzed using negative binomial regressions while adjusting for days since publication. Independent t-tests were utilized to compare means scores between OA vs. non-OA groups.
The OA articles had greater mean AAS (13.45 vs. 8.42, P = 0.012) and Mendeley readership (43.91 vs. 36.72, P < 0.001). OA was not an independent predictor of number of citations when compared to non- OA articles (13.98 vs. 13.63, P = 0.914). Subgroup analysis of studies in top-10 arthroplasty journals showed OA was not an independent predictor of AAS (13.51 vs. 9.53, P = 0.084) or number of citations (19.51 vs. 18.74, P = 0.495), but was an independent predictor of Mendeley readership (49.05 vs. 40.25, P < 0.003).
The OA publications in the TKA literature were associated with increased social media attention, but not overall citations. This association was not observed among the top 10 journals. Authors may utilize these results to weigh the relative importance of readership, citations, and online engagement to the cost of OA publication.
Abstract: This report details work to systematically scope evidence of the academic, societal and economic impacts of Open Science. It is guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodological framework, and was limited to works in English since 2000 found in academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus) of peer-reviewed literature. This deliverable reports findings from the first stage of this work. Future work will extend this via snowball citation searching and web search for grey literature and will be published as three pre-prints. Through systematic screening and assessment of over 30,000 initial records, we identified 479 relevant studies (311, 155 and 13 related to academic, societal and economic impact, respectively). Our findings show that evidence of impact is concentrated around Open Access (primarily academic impact) and Citizen Science (primarily societal impact), with little evidence of impact for other Open Science aspects, and hardly any evidence of economic impact. Across types of impact, we found:
Academic impact: Open Access, especially impact as measured via citations, is most heavily studied. Evidence suggests an Open Access citation advantage; exclusion of authors from less resourced regions and institutions due to APCs; and that “predatory publishing” threatens the quality of the research literature. Open/FAIR Data are associated with data reuse and a citation advantage for associated papers, but their role in fostering (computational) reproducibility seems less significant than expected. Open Code and Software produce efficiency gains in software development, and may also increase citations of associated papers. Citizen Science increases efficiency and scope of data collection, but data quality is sometimes of issue. Open peer review shows neutral to positive effects on review quality.
Societal impact: The majority of studies relevant to societal impact concern Citizen Science, across a variety of types including educational, engagement and empowerment benefits for participants and their communities, and the creation of data for use in governmental monitoring and administering of environments and natural resources. Beyond CS, evidence is more limited. Some literature demonstrates societal impacts of OA, including public engagement with scientific literature, use in policy-making, and health-related outcomes. Beyond this, our search revealed little evidence. Especially relevant is the limited evidence (at this stage in our study) regarding the policy impact of OS (a recurrent claim in OS advocacy) and the societal impact of Open/FAIR Data.
Economic impact: Evidence here was scarce, with only 13 papers identified as relevant. Evidence was most prevalent from the biomedical and health domains. Some evidence gives positive indications of the potential of OA and Open/FAIR data to power economic activity but this is still largely without rigorous quantification. The report closes by reflecting on evidence gaps, including potential causes and solutions.
To assess the role of influential figures within social media (SoMe) in driving future citations.
All original articles published in the Journal of Urology (JU) and European Urology (EU) in 2018 were identified. For each article, number of mentions on any SoMe platform, article’s Twitter reach, and total citations were collected. Article characteristics such as type of study, article topic, and open access status were identified. Total academic research output was obtained for first and last authors of included articles.
Influential SoMe figures were defined as users that tweeted about included articles and had over 2000 followers. For these accounts, we collected total followers, total tweets, engagement statistics, verification status, and academic characteristics such as total citations and total prior publications. The impact of social media, article, and academic characteristics on future citations was assessed using panel data regression analysis.
We identified 394 articles with 8,895 total citations and 460 SoMe influencers. On panel data regression modeling, tweets about a specific article were associated with future citations (0.17 citations per tweet about an article, p<0.001). SoMe influencer characteristics were not associated with increased citations (p>0.05).
The following non-SoMe-associated characteristics were predictive of future citations (p<0.001): study type (prospective studies received 12.9 more citations than cross-sectional studies), open access status (4.3 citations more if open access, p<0.001), and previously well-published first and last authors.
While SoMe posts are associated with increased visibility and higher future citation rates, SoMe influencers do not appear to drive these outcomes. Instead, high quality and accessibility were more predictive of future citability.
Abstract: Objective To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.
Method A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980–2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score.
Results Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018–2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%–41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5–5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6–2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC – r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology – r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7).
Conclusion OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.
Abstract: This research provides insight into the complex relationship between open access, funding, and citation advantage. It presents an analysis of research articles and their citations in the Scopus database across 40 subject categories. The sample includes 12 categories from Health Sciences, 7 from Life Sciences, 10 from Physical Sciences & Engineering, and 11 from Social Sciences & Humanities. Specifically, the analysis focuses on articles published in 2016 and the citations they received from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that open access articles published in hybrid journals receive considerably more citations than those published in gold open access journals. Articles under the hybrid gold modality are cited on average twice as much as those in the gold modality, regardless of funding. Furthermore, we found that funded articles generally obtain 50 % more citations than unfunded ones within the same publication modality. Open access repositories significantly increase citations, particularly for articles without funding. Thus, articles in open access repositories receive 50 % more citations than paywalled ones.