Abstract: The present study aims to analyze 1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications 2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from this http URL database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the “number of readers” indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score.
We aimed to examine how the rise of open access (OA) journals in biomedicine has impacted resident research in radiation oncology.
We built a comprehensive database of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We then classified each journal in which these manuscripts appeared as either OA or non-OA, and obtained the current article processing charge (APC) for every publication that appeared in an OA journal. Lastly, we performed a secondary analysis to identify the factors associated with publishing an article in an OA journal.
The US radiation oncology residents in this study published 2,637 first-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts, 555 (21.0%) of which appeared in 138 OA journals. The number of publications in OA journals increased from 0.47 per resident for the class of 2015 to 0.79 per resident for the class of 2019. Likewise, the number of publications in OA journals with a 2019 impact factor of zero increased from 0.14 per resident for the class of 2015 to 0.43 per resident for the class of 2019. Publications in OA journals garnered fewer citations than those in non-OA journals (8.9 versus 14.9, P < 0.01). 90.6% of OA journals levy an APC for original research reports (median $1,896), which is positively correlated with their 2019 impact factor (r?=?0.63, P < 0.01). Aggregate APCs totaled $900,319.21 for all US radiation oncology residency programs and appeared to increase over the study period.
The number of first-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts published by graduating US radiation oncology residents in OA journals rose significantly over the study period. US radiation oncology residency programs appear to be investing increasing and significant sums of money to publish the work of their residents in these journals. A more substantive discussion about the proper role of OA journals in resident research is needed.
To investigate whether dental journal articles that are Open Access (OA) receive greater citation counts and higher Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) than articles that are non-OA in the long term.
Eligible dental journal articles published in 2013 were identified via PubMed, and Web of science, Unpaywall and corresponding URLs were manually checked to determine the OA status of each included article 7 years after publication. Citation counts were extracted from Web of Science and Scopus, and AAS was harvested from the Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable general linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between OA and citation count, as well as between OA and AAS.
Among the 755 included articles, 309 (40.9%) were freely available online. Among the 309 OA articles, articles available from publishers accounted for 64.4% (199/309) of all OA articles, and those available through self-archiving accounted for 56.0% (173/309). According to regression analyses, OA articles had significantly greater citation counts (P = 0.001) and AAS (P < 0.001) than non-OA articles.
In the field of dentistry, about 41% of journal articles are OA 7 years after publication, and OA articles available from the publishers are more common than those from authors through self-archiving. OA articles tend to have greater scientific and social impact than non-OA articles in the long term.
Abstract: In scholarly communication literature, an Open Access citation advantage refers to articles published or released as Open Access receiving a higher citation count than articles that are not released Open Access. This article considers Open Access citation advantage factors at the University of South Florida. Data from Scopus and Open Access Button was used to examine publication activity from a five-year range in seven different departments. The data indicated that an Open Access citation advantage does exist in most of those departments. Future research is necessary to look at other departments.
Does open access (OA) to journal articles foster citations to these articles? We compare the citation impact of gold and green OA in two disciplines: Biology and Economics & Management. The empirical analysis covers all articles of these disciplines included in the Web of Science “Journal Citation Reports” between 2000 and 2019. We show that, controlling for confounding variables pertaining to the journals and articles, gold OA increases citations across all articles. However, the individual disciplines feature starkly different effects: a 18.3% increase in Biology, compared to a decrease by 30.9% in Economics & Management. Also Green OA leads to an increase in citations to academic research. These results are confirmed by a number of robustness checks.
Researchers are more likely to read and cite papers to which they have access than those that they cannot obtain. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the contribution of the Open Access (OA) modality to the impact of hybrid journals. For this, the research articles in the year 2017 from 200 hybrid journals in four subject areas, and the citations received by such articles in the period 2017-2020 in the Scopus database, were analyzed. The journals were randomly selected from those with share of OA papers higher than some minimal value. More than 60 thousand research articles were analyzed in the sample, of which 24% under the OA modality. As results, we obtain that cites per article in both hybrid modalities strongly correlate. However, there is no correlation between the OA prevalence and cites per article in any of the hybrid modalities. There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals. Moreover, the OA citation advantage is consistent across fields and held in time. We obtain an OA citation advantage of 50% in average, and higher than 37% in half of the hybrid journals. Finally, the OA citation advantage is higher in Humanities than in Science and Social Science.
There are limited evidence-based strategies that have been shown to increase the rate at which peer-reviewed articles are cited. In a previously reported randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated that promotion of article links in an online cross-publisher distribution platform (TrendMD) persistently augments citation rates after 12 months, leading to a statistically significant 50% increase in citations relative to the control.
Objective:This study aims to investigate if the citation advantage of promoted articles upholds after 36 months.
Methods:A total of 3200 published articles in 64 peer-reviewed journals across 8 subject areas were block randomized at the subject level to either the TrendMD group (n=1600) or the control group (n=1600) of the study. Articles were promoted in the TrendMD Network for 6 months. We compared the citation rates in both groups after 36 months.
Results:At 36 months, we found the citation advantage endured; articles randomized to TrendMD showed a 28% increase in mean citations relative to the control. The difference in mean citations at 36 months for articles randomized to TrendMD versus the control was 10.52 (95% CI 3.79-17.25) and was statistically significant (P=.001).
Conclusions:To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate how a postpublication article promotion intervention can be used to persistently augment citations of peer-reviewed articles. TrendMD is an efficient digital tool for knowledge translation and dissemination to targeted audiences to facilitate the uptake of research.
Abstract: Open access to scholarly contents has grown substantially in recent years. This includes the number of books published open access online. However, there is limited study on how usage patterns (via downloads, citations and web visibility) of these books may differ from their closed counterparts. Such information is not only important for book publishers, but also for researchers in disciplines where books are the norm. This article reports on findings from comparing samples of books published by Springer Nature to shed light on differences in usage patterns across open access and closed books. The study includes a selection of 281 open access books and a sample of 3,653 closed books (drawn from 21,059 closed books using stratified random sampling). The books are stratified by combinations of book type, discipline and year of publication to enable likewise comparisons within each stratum and to maximize statistical power of the sample. The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books across all strata. Importantly, open access books have increased access and usage for traditionally underserved populations.
“Many studies have already looked at the advantages of publishing open access (OA) over non-OA, however few have explored the effects of publishing OA articles in hybrid journals—journals that contain both a mixture of OA and non-OA articles. Fewer still have directly compared the differences in impact and reach for the full range of publishing models in hybrid journals, such as Gold OA articles to subscription articles where an earlier article version (e.g. the accepted manuscript or preprint) has been self-archived in an OA repository.
In 2021, Springer Nature commissioned an analysis of 60,567 articles published in 1,262 of its hybrid journals, measuring reach by the number of downloads and the attention reflected in the Altmetric Attention Score, and impact through the number of citations. This presentation will discuss the findings from the recent Springer Nature white paper, “Going for Gold: Exploring the Reach and Impact of Gold Open Access Articles in Hybrid Journals,” as well as potential implications of these findings for authors, and for institutional and funder policy decisions. Jessica Monaghan, Director of Policy and Performance, OA, at Springer Nature will give a presentation and answer your questions.”
Open access (OA) is based on a set of principles and a range of practices through which fruits of research are distributed online, free of cost, or other access barriers. According to the 2001 definition, OA publications are without barriers to copy or reuse with free access to readers. Some studies have reported higher rates of citation for OA publications. In this study, we analyzed the citation rates of OA and traditional nonOA (with or without free access) publications for authors publishing in the subspecialty of cytopathology during 2010–2015.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
We observed and compared citation patterns for authors who had published in both OA and traditional non-OA, peer-reviewed, scientific, cytopathology journals. Thirty authors were randomly selected with criteria of publishing a total of at least five cytopathology articles over 2010–2015. Number of citations per article (CPA) (during 2010–2015) for OA publications (in CytoJournal and Journal of Cytology) and non-OA publications (in Diagnostic Cytopathology, Cytopathology, Acta Cytologica, Journal of American of Cytopathology, and Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology) was collected and compared statistically using two-tailed Student’s t-est. The data were collected manually through science citation analysis sites, mostly Google Scholar.
Thirty authors published 579 cytopathology articles in OA and non-OA journals. Average CPA for OA publications was 26.64. This was 11.35 higher than the average CPA) of non-OA conventional with subscription cytopathology journals (74% increase) and 11.76 higher than the average CPA of conventional cytopathology non-OA journal articles with free access (79% increase). These differences were statistically significantly with P < 0.05.
We observed that the cytopathology publications in the OA journal attained a higher rate of CPA than the publications in the traditional non-OA journals in the field of cytopathology during 2010–2015.
Abstract: Since 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors’ biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find weak evidence that authors preferentially select their highest quality, most novel or most significant research to post as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.
“The entire Journal of Synchrotron Radiation (JSR) editorial team would like to take this opportunity to inform all our readers, authors and supporters about the coming transition to open access. All papers submitted to JSR after 1 October 2021 will be for open-access publication. By taking this step, JSR is supporting a journey towards open science in general….
At this time, we wish to express our enormous appreciation of JSR’s supporting (facility) institutions. We also hope that more supporting institutions will join with JSR as we move forward from here. JSR supporting institutions are entitled to a certain number of open-access article processing charge (APC) vouchers per year for papers reporting work carried out at their facilities. Alternatively, if the contact author’s home institution is included in a transformative or read-and-publish arrangement with the IUCr’s publication partner, Wiley, those authors will be able to publish open-access research or review articles in JSR with no direct (APC) charge. Currently, such arrangements exist in Austria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Contact authors with connections to IUCr (Associates, members of national affiliates, World Directory of Crystallography, etc.) will receive modest APC discounts. Meanwhile, discounts (50%) for authors from lower middle income countries and waivers (100%) from low income countries will be issued. However, please note that a major difference from present arrangements is that all submitting authors will need to apply for such discounts and waivers at the time of submission and payments will be handled via Wiley authors services (for more details see https://journals.iucr.org/s/services/openaccess.html)….”
The purpose of this study is to compare the number of citations received by open access articles versus subscription access articles in subscription journals in the Otolaryngology literature.
Using the Dimensions research database, we examined articles indexed to PubMed with at least 5 citations published in 2018. Articles were included from Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, and American Journal of Otolaryngology. Multivariate Poisson regression modeling was used to adjust for journal, article type, and topic. Practice guidelines, position statements, or retractions were excluded as potential outliers.
137 open access articles and 337 subscription access articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified, with a median citation number of 8 (IQR 6-11). The most common article type was original investigation (82.5%), and the most common study topic was head and neck (28.9%). Open access articles had a higher median number of citations at 9 (IQR 6-13) when compared to subscription access articles at 7 (IQR 6-10) (P?=?.032). Open access status was significantly associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles when adjusting for journal, article type, and topic (??=?.272, CI 0.194-0.500, P?<?.001).
Although comprising a minority of articles examined in this study of subscription journals, open access articles were associated with a higher number of citations than subscription access articles. Open access publishing may facilitate the spread of novel findings in Otolaryngology.