The impact of the open-access status on journal indices: a review of medical journals | F1000Research

infodocketGARY's bookmarks 2019-04-20

Summary:

Background: Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of open access (OA) journals in almost all disciplines. This increase in OA journals was accompanied an increase in funding to support such movements. Medical fields are among the highest funded fields, which further promoted its journals to move toward OA publishing. Here, we aim to compare OA and non-OA journals in terms of citation metrics and other indices. Methods: We collected data on the included journals from Scopus Source List on 1st November 2018.  We filtered the list for medical journals only. For each journal, we extracted data regarding citation metrics, scholarly output, and wither the journal is OA or non-OA. Results: On the 2017 Scopus list of journals, there was 5835 medical journals. Upon analyzing the difference between medical OA and non-OA journals, we found that OA journals had a significantly higher CiteScore (p< 0.001), percent cited (p< 0.001), and source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) (p< 0.001), whereas non-OA journals had higher scholarly output (p< 0.001). Among the five largest journal publishers, Springer Nature published the highest frequency of OA articles (31.5%), while Wiley-Blackwell had the lowest frequency among its medical journals (4.4%). Conclusion: Among medical journals, although non-OA journals still have higher output in terms of articles per year, OA journals have higher citation metrics

Link:

https://f1000research.com/articles/8-266/v1

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » DHopf's bookmarks
Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » infodocketGARY's bookmarks

Tags:

oa.new oa.f1000_research oa.indexes oa.citations oa.metrics oa.gold oa.journals oa.medicine oa.advantage oa.growth oa.studies oa.empirical

Date tagged:

04/20/2019, 10:25

Date published:

04/20/2019, 04:20