Which domains do open-access journals do best in? A 5-year longitudinal study - Yan - 2018 - Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology - Wiley Online Library

peter.suber's bookmarks 2018-01-27

Summary:

Abstract:  Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal's rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.

Link:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24002/full

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags:

oa.new oa.paywalled oa.gold oa.impact oa.citations oa.chemistry oa.biochemistry oa.medicine oa.biomedicine oa.metrics oa.economics oa.business oa.disciplines oa.advantage oa.journals oa.ssh oa.studies oa.empirical

Date tagged:

01/27/2018, 16:41

Date published:

01/27/2018, 11:41