Will your paper be more cited if published in Open Access? | SciELO in Perspective

“Academia.edu is a well-known social network for scholars, established in 2008, which currently informs over 30 million registered users. The platform is used to share research papers, monitor their impact and follow up on any research in a particular area of ??expertise. Its repository contains more than 8 million full-text articles published in open access (OA) and receives 36 million visitors per month. In April 2015, a research conducted by six Academia.edu employees and the consulting company Polynumeral1 on the growth of received citations to research publications that were deposited in its open access repository was distributed to 20 million users registered on its website, stating that the articles there deposited increased citations received by 83% within five years …”

The relationship between journal rejections and their impact factors – ScienceOpen Blog

“Frontiers recently published a fascinating article about the relationship between the impact factors (IF) and rejection rates from a range of journals. It was a neat little study designed around the perception that many publishers have that in order to generate high citation counts for their journals, they must be highly selective and only publish the ‘highest quality’ work. Apart from issues involved with what can be seen as wasting time and money in rejecting perfectly good research, this apparent relationship has important implications for researchers. They will tend to often submit to higher impact (and therefore apparently more selective) journals in the hope that this confers some sort of prestige on their work, rather than letting their research speak for itself. Upon the relatively high likelihood of rejection, submissions will then continue down the ‘impact ladder’ until a more receptive venue is finally obtained for their research. The new data from Frontiers shows that this perception is most likely false. From a random sample of 570 journals (indexed in the 2014 Journal Citation Reports; Thomson Reuters, 2015), it seems that journal rejection rates are almost entirely independent of impact factors. Importantly, this implies that researchers can just as easily submit their work to less selective journals and still have the same impact factor assigned to it. This relationship will remain important while the impact factor continues to dominate assessment criteria and how researchers evaluate each other (whether or not the IF is a good candidate for this is another debate) …”

[1511.02512] The data sharing advantage in astrophysics

[Abstract] We present here evidence for the existence of a citation advantage within astrophysics for papers that link to data. Using simple measures based on publication data from NASA Astrophysics Data System we find a citation advantage for papers with links to data receiving on the average significantly more citations per paper than papers without links to data. Furthermore, using INSPEC and Web of Science databases we investigate whether either papers of an experimental or theoretical nature display different citation behavior.

It Takes More than a Mandate: Factors that Contribute to Increased Rates of Article Deposit to an Institutional Repository

[Abstract] INTRODUCTION Many institutions have open access (OA) policies that require faculty members to deposit their articles in an institutional repository (IR). A clear motivation is that a policy will result in increased self-archiving. The purpose of this longitudinal study is to compare the impact of a campus-wide OA policy and mediated solicitation of author manuscripts, using quantitative analysis to determine the rate of article deposits over time. METHODS Metadata for faculty articles published by authors at Oregon State University between 2011 and 2014 was produced by integrating citation metadata from a bibliographic database and the IR. Author names, affiliations, and other metadata were parsed and matched to compare rates of deposit for three separate time periods relating to different OA promotional strategies. RESULTS Direct solicitation of author manuscripts is more successful in facilitating OA than an OA policy—by number of articles deposited as well as the number of unique authors participating. Author affiliation and research areas also have an impact on faculty participation in OA. DISCUSSION Outreach to colleges and departments has had a positive effect on rate of deposit for those communities of scholars. Additionally, disciplinary practice may have more influence on its members’ participation in OA. CONCLUSION Until more federal policies require open access to articles funded by grants, or institutional policies are in place that require article deposit for promotion and tenure, policies will only be as effective as the library mediated processes that are put in place to identify and solicit articles from faculty.

The presence of High-impact factor Open Access… | Barbaro | JLIS.it

[Abstract] The present study means to establish to what extent high-quality open access journals are available as an outlet for publication, by examining their distribution in different scientific disciplines, including the distribution of those journals without article processing charges. The study is based on a systematic comparison between the journals included in the DOAJ, and the journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Science edition 2013, released by Thomson Reuters. The impact factor of Open Access (OA) journals was lower than those of other journals by a small but statistically significant amount. Open access journals are present in the upper quartile (by impact factor) of 85 out of 176 (48.8%) categories examined. There were no OA journals with an Impact Factor in only 16 categories (9%).

Cites & Insights: The Gold OA Landscape 2011-2014

“This issue consists of an excerpted version of The Gold OA Landscape 2011- 2014, published September 10, 2015 as a PDF ebook for $55.00 and on September 11, 2015 as a paperback book for $60.00. Both are currently available at Lulu.com (use the links, repeated here: http://www.lulu.com/content/ebook/the-gold-oa-landscape-2011-2014/17262336 for the ebook, http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-gold-oa-landscape-2011- 2014/17264390 for the paperback book. Both editions have ISBNs: 978-1- 329-54713-1 for the PDF, 978-1-329-54762-9 for the paperback. The paperback should eventually be available through Amazon, Ingram or Barnes & Noble, but I don’t know when that will happen. This book represents the first overview of essentially all of serious gold OA—that is, what’s published by the journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. I believe it’s important for all OA publishers and for many libraries and OA advocates. If it does well, or if there’s some form of alternative funding, I’ll continue tracking the field in the future … How many open access (OA) articles are published each year? How many open access (OA) journals publish how many OA articles? What proportion of those journals and articles involve fees (usually called Article Processing Charges or APCs)? Those seemingly-simple questions don’t have simple answers. The first one may not have an answer at all. This report provides a reasonably complete set of answers to the second and third questions and provides a detailed picture of the Gold OA landscape—that is, journals that make all refereed articles immediately available for anybody to read and download from the Internet, at no cost and with no barriers. This report is based on an exhaustive study of Gold OA journals as represented by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) as of June 8, 2015, excluding journals that began publishing in 2015 (and two accidental duplications in DOAJ) …”

A game theoretic analysis of research data sharing [PeerJ]

[Abstract] While reusing research data has evident benefits for the scientific community as a whole, decisions to archive and share these data are primarily made by individual researchers. In this paper we analyse, within a game theoretical framework, how sharing and reuse of research data affect individuals who share or do not share their datasets. We construct a model in which there is a cost associated with sharing datasets whereas reusing such sets implies a benefit. In our calculations, conflicting interests appear for researchers. Individual researchers are always better off not sharing and omitting the sharing cost, at the same time both sharing and not sharing researchers are better off if (almost) all researchers share. Namely, the more researchers share, the more benefit can be gained by the reuse of those datasets. We simulated several policy measures to increase benefits for researchers sharing or reusing datasets. Results point out that, although policies should be able to increase the rate of sharing researchers, and increased discoverability and dataset quality could partly compensate for costs, a better measure would be to directly lower the cost for sharing, or even turn it into a (citation-) benefit. Making data available would in that case become the most profitable, and therefore stable, strategy. This means researchers would willingly make their datasets available, and arguably in the best possible way to enable reuse.