tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hub_feeds/4346/feed_itemsDHopf's bookmarks2022-03-09T09:33:04-05:00TagTeam social RSS aggregratortag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072822022-03-09T09:33:04-05:002022-03-09T09:33:04-05:00The Rise of Open Access Journals in Radiation Oncology: Are We Paying for Impact? - ScienceDirect<div>
<div>
<div>
<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3>
<p>We aimed to examine how the rise of open access (OA) journals in biomedicine has impacted resident research in radiation oncology.</p>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Materials/Methods</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>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, <em>P</em> < 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, <em>P</em> < 0.01). Aggregate APCs totaled $900,319.21 for all US radiation oncology residency programs and appeared to increase over the study period.</p>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072782022-03-09T09:26:02-05:002022-03-09T09:26:02-05:00The Roles of Female Involvement and Risk Aversion in Open Access Publishing Patterns in Vietnamese Social Sciences and Humanities<p><strong>Abstract</strong>
<strong>Purpose:</strong> The open-access (OA) publishing model can help improve researchers’ outreach, thanks to its accessibility and visibility to the public. Therefore, the presentation of female researchers can benefit from the OA publishing model. Despite that, little is known about how gender affects OA practices. Thus, the current study explores the effects of female involvement and risk aversion on OA publishing patterns among Vietnamese social sciences and humanities.
<strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>The study employed Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) on a dataset of 3,122 Vietnamese social sciences and humanities (SS&H) publications during 2008–2019. The Mindsponge mechanism was specifically used to construct theoretical models, while Bayesian inference was utilized for fitting models.
<strong>Findings:</strong> The result showed a positive association between female participation and OA publishing probability. However, the positive effect of female involvement on OA publishing probability was negated by the high ratio of female researchers in a publication. OA status was negatively associated with the JIF of the journal in which the publication was published, but the relationship was moderated by the involvement of a female researcher(s). The findings suggested that Vietnamese female researchers might be more likely to publish under the OA model in journals with high JIF for avoiding the risk of public criticism.
<strong>Research limitations: </strong> The study could only provide evidence on the association between female involvement and OA publishing probability. However, whether to publish under OA terms is often determined by the first or corresponding authors, but not necessarily gender-based.Practical implications: Systematically coordinated actions are suggested to better support women and promote the OA movement in Vietnam.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37070452022-03-09T07:45:25-05:002022-03-09T07:46:22-05:00How do self-archiving and Author-pays models associate and contribute to OA citation advantage within hybrid journals - ScienceDirect<h2>Abstract</h2>
<p>Hybrid open access journals generally authorize self-archiving along with Author-pays model. Given the dependence of the Author-pays model on APCs paid by authors, it is expected to have a negative association with the free-of-charge Green model. By exploring a sample of 52,150 papers published in 47 Elsevier's hybrid journals, the study compares the OA models' citation performances to non-open access (NOA) model's and investigates the relationship between the quantities of their papers.</p>
<p>Three OA groups are identified, including Green-only, APC-only and Green-APC. The OA papers show a citation advantage over the NOA articles, despite their lower number. The mixed APC-Green, gains the highest citation compared to the three other access models. However, the number of Green and APC-funded papers are revealed to have a negative association. Although, the combination of the Green and APC models magnifies the impact of OA papers, the inverse association between the quantities of their papers signifies that the lower number of the latter can be partially explained by the prevalence of the former. The results help academic librarians involved in advocating and managing OA to better understand authors' behaviors towards OA models and adopt a more supportive role for OA according to their preferences.</p>tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34391852022-01-27T10:14:48-05:002022-01-27T10:14:48-05:00Publication cultures and the citation impact of open access - Eger - 2021 - Managerial and Decision Economics - Wiley Online Library<p>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.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34403422022-01-28T06:47:08-05:002023-09-24T09:27:58-04:00The Impact of Open Access Mandates on Invention | The Review of Economics and Statistics | MIT Press<p>Abstract: How do barriers to the diffusion of academic research affect innovation? In 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandated free online availability of funded research. This policy caused a 50 percentage point increase in free access to funded articles. We introduce a novel measure, in-text patent citations, to study how this mandate affected industry use of academic science. After 2008, patents cite NIH-funded research 12% to 27% more often. Nonfunded research, funded research in journals unaffected by the mandate, and academic citations see no change. These estimates are consistent with a model of search for useful knowledge. Inefficiency caused by academic publishing may be substantial.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/32328742021-09-11T10:18:46-04:002022-01-28T06:13:21-05:00Impact of cytopathology authors work: Comparative analysis based on Open-access cytopathology publications non-Open-access conventional publications - CytoJournal<p>Abstract: OBJECTIVES:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>MATERIAL AND METHODS:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>RESULTS:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>CONCLUSION:</p>
<p>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.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072932022-03-09T09:50:31-05:002022-03-09T09:50:31-05:00Lag times in the publication of network meta-analyses: a survey | BMJ Open<div>
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<div>
<p><strong>Objective</strong> We assessed the extent of lag times in the publication and indexing of network meta-analyses (NMAs).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Study design</strong> This was a survey of published NMAs on drug interventions.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Setting</strong> NMAs indexed in PubMed (searches updated in May 2020).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Primary and secondary outcome measures</strong> Lag times were measured as the time between the last systematic search and the article submission, acceptance, online publication, indexing and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation dates. Time-to-event analyses were performed considering independent variables (geographical origin, Journal Impact Factor, Scopus CiteScore, open access status) (SPSS V.24, R/RStudio).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Results</strong> We included 1245 NMAs. The median time from last search to article submission was 6.8 months (204 days (IQR 95–381)), and to publication was 11.6 months. Only 5% of authors updated their search after first submission. There is a very slightly decreasing historical trend of acceptance (rho=−0.087; p=0.010), online publication (rho=−0.080; p=0.008) and indexing (rho=−0.080; p=0.007) lag times. Journal Impact Factor influenced the MeSH allocation process, but not the other lag times. The comparison between open access versus subscription journals confirmed meaningless differences in acceptance, online publication and indexing lag times.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong> Efforts by authors to update their search before submission are needed to reduce evidence production time. Peer reviewers and editors should ensure authors’ compliance with NMA standards. The accuracy of these findings depends on the accuracy of the metadata used; as we evaluated only NMA on drug interventions, results may not be generalisable to all types of studies.</p>
</div>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34391732022-01-27T10:07:34-05:002022-01-28T08:49:59-05:00News media attention in Climate Action: latent topics and open access | SpringerLink<p>In this study we investigated whether open access could assist the broader dissemination of scientific research in Climate Action (Sustainable Development Goal 13) via news outlets. We did this by comparing (i) the share of open and non-open access documents in different Climate Action topics, and their news counts, and (ii) the mean of news counts for open access and non-open access documents. The data set of this study comprised 70,206 articles and reviews in Sustainable Development Goal 13, published during 2014–2018, retrieved from SciVal. The number of news mentions for each document was obtained from Altmetrics Details Page API using their DOIs, whereas the open access statuses were obtained using Unpaywall.org. The analysis in this paper was done using a combination of (Latent Dirichlet allocation) topic modelling, descriptive statistics, and regression analysis. The covariates included in the regression analysis were features related to authors, country, journal, institution, funding, readability, news source category and topic. Using topic modelling, we identified 10 topics, with topics 4 (meteorology) [21%], 5 (adaption, mitigation, and legislation) [18%] and 8 (ecosystems and biodiversity) [14%] accounting for 53% of the research in Sustainable Development Goal 13. Additionally, the results of regression analysis showed that while keeping all the variables constant in the model, open access papers in Climate Action had a news count advantage (8.8%) in comparison to non-open access papers. Our findings also showed that while a higher share of open access documents in topics such as topic 9 (Human vulnerability to risks) might not assist with its broader dissemination, in some others such as topic 5 (adaption, mitigation, and legislation), even a lower share of open access documents might accelerate its broad communication via news outlets.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072662022-03-09T09:04:32-05:002022-03-09T09:04:32-05:00What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? | Systematic Reviews | Full Text<h2>Abstract</h2>
<h3>Background</h3>
<p>Social media has been used to disseminate the contents of scientific articles. To measure the impact of this, a new tool called <em>Altmetric</em> was created. <em>Altmetric</em> aims to quantify the impact of each article through online media. This systematic review aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and published article variables and <em>Altmetric</em> scores.</p>
<h3>Methods</h3>
<p>Searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library were conducted. We extracted data related to both the publishing article and the publishing journal associated with <em>Altmetric</em> scores. The methodological quality of included articles was analyzed by the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies.</p>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>A total of 19 articles were considered eligible. These articles summarized a total of 573,842 studies. Citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access, and press releases generated by the publishing journal were associated with <em>Altmetric</em> scores. The magnitude of these associations ranged from weak to strong.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common variables associated with <em>Altmetric</em> scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals, and the use of press releases are also likely to be associated with online media attention.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34391862022-01-27T10:26:26-05:002022-01-28T08:53:26-05:00The cost-effectiveness of the article-processing-charge-funded model across countries in different scientific blocks: the case of Elsevier's hybrid open access journals<p>he cost-effectiveness of the article-processing-charge-funded model across countries in different scientific blocks: the case of Elsevier's hybrid open access journals</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/30705762021-06-12T11:03:11-04:002022-01-27T09:44:43-05:00Assessing number and quality of urology open access journals... : Current Urology<p>Abstract: Background/Aims: </p>
<p>There is clear evidence that publishing research in an open access (OA) journal or as an OA model is associated with higher impact, in terms of number of reads and citation rates. The development of OA journals and their quality are poorly studied in the field of urology. In this study, we aim to assess the number of OA journals, their quality in terms of CiteScore, percent cited and quartiles, and their scholarly production during the period from 2011 to 2018.</p>
<p>Methods: </p>
<p>We obtained data about journals from <a href="http://www.scopus.com/">www.scopus.com</a>, and we filtered the list for urology journals. We obtained data for all Scopus indexed journals during the period from 2011 to 2018. For each journal, we extracted the following indices: CiteScore, Citations, scholarly output, and SCImago quartiles. We analyzed the difference in quality indices between OA and non-OA urology journals.</p>
<p>Results: </p>
<p>Urology journals have increased from 66 journals in 2011 to 99 journals in 2018. The number of OA urology journals has increased from only 10 (15.2%) journals in 2011 to 33 (33.3%) journals in 2018. The number of quartile 1 (the top 25%) journals has increased from only 1 journal in 2011 to 5 journals in 2018. Non-OA urology journals had significantly higher CiteScore compared with OA journals till the year 2015, after which the mean difference in CiteScore became smaller with insignificant p-value.</p>
<p>Conclusion: </p>
<p>Number and quality of OA journals in the field of urology have increased throughout the last few years. Despite this increase, non-OA urology journals still have higher quality and output.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072732022-03-09T09:17:50-05:002022-03-09T09:17:50-05:00Factors associated with open access publishing costs in oncology journals. | Journal of Clinical Oncology<p>ABSTRACT</p>
<p><strong>Background:</strong> The open access (OA) publishing model represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. In contrast to many traditional models, which require readers to pay subscription fees or rely upon institutional subscriptions for article access, the OA model grants free access to all consumers. However, OA publication is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. In this investigation, we aimed to identify journal-level factors associated with OA publication costs in oncology journals. <strong>Methods:</strong> We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals under the “Oncology” category that offer an OA publishing option with APC data openly available were included. For all journals, we searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (USD), OA model (hybrid vs full), journal 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, primary treatment modality (surgery, radiation, medical, non-specific), treatment site (e.g. breast, etc), and continent of origin. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate univariate linear relationships between variables; for variables with significant correlation, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. <strong>Results:</strong> Of 367 oncology journals screened, 266 met final inclusion criteria. The median APC was 2810 USD (range 0 – 5200). On univariate linear correlation regression testing, journals with the full OA model (p < 0.001), higher journal IF (p < 0.001), higher H-index (p < 0.001), greater number of published articles (p < 0.001), and those from North America or Europe (p < 0.001) tended to have higher OA publishing costs. When these co-variates were analyzed in a multiple regression model, only full OA status (p < 0.001), higher IF (p < 0.001), and North American or European origin (p < 0.001) persisted as independently associated with greater OA APC. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Large APCs may serve as a barrier to OA publication and therefore create or exacerbate disparities among scientific investigators seeking to share their research. In this investigation, we find that OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that utilize the hybrid OA model, have higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072682022-03-09T09:12:43-05:002022-03-09T09:12:43-05:00Factors Affecting the Time to Publication in Ophthalmology Journals: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis: Ophthalmic Epidemiology: Vol 0, No 0<div>
<div>ABSTRACT</div>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Purpose</strong>: There are currently no available aids for authors when selecting ophthalmology journals to submit their manuscripts. We aim to provide comprehensive data on the duration from submission to various stages of the publication process and assess factors influencing time to publication in ophthalmology journals.</p>
<p><strong>Methods</strong>: A list of ophthalmology journals was obtained from the 2019 Web of Science Journal Citation Report. Journal characteristics, such as five-year impact factor, number of authors per article, journal type, and number of multi-institutional articles, were collected. The dates of submission, acceptance, electronic and print publication for all articles published in an ophthalmology journal in 2019 were determined.</p>
<p><strong>Results</strong>: In total, 56 journals and 8835 research articles were included. Of these articles, 3591 (40.6%) were open access and 4837 (54.7%) were multi-institutional. In 2019, most publications came from the United States of America (n = 1973), China (n = 1069) and Germany (n = 602). Significant associations were found between various predictors and a reduced mean number of days from submission to electronic publication: increased journal five-year impact factor (<em>p = </em>.026), more authors (<em>p = </em>.028), publishing in a hybrid journal (both open-access and subscription articles) versus an open-access journal (<em>p = </em>.021), and a reduced proportion of multi-institutional articles in a journal (<em>p = </em>.030).</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: There is a wide variation in the time to acceptance and publication in ophthalmology journals. Authors can expect a shorter time to publication when publishing in high-impact journals.</p>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072672022-03-09T09:07:56-05:002022-03-09T09:07:56-05:00"Explored publication pattern of the top twenty NIRF-2020 ranked India" by Kanu Chakraborty Mr, Navin Upadhyay Dr et al.<div>
<h4>Abstract</h4>
<p>Institutions ranking are getting more attention nowadays, as it shows institutions' status globally and influences students' decisions in selecting Institutions for admissions. Open access publications in scholarly research communication are important, but its significance in institutions' ranking is yet to explore. In this study, the authors tried to demonstrate and compare open access and commercial publication documents of the top twenty institutions (overall category) as per the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2020 report<strong>.</strong> According to NIRF-2020, maintaining their last year's positions, IIT Madras and IISc Bangalore bagged the first two ranks, followed by IIT Delhi on the third position among educational institutions with the score of 85.31, 84.18, and 81.33, respectively. In the study, it came out that in comparison to commercial publications open access publication perform better on the parameters of international collaboration, industry collaboration, the article in Q1 journals, citation impact, category normalized Citation Impact and Percentage of the document cited. Having the opinion that ranking provides an effective way of inspiring universities to continue, and hopefully increase, their commitment to open scholarship, this paper propose a parameter for open access publication to evaluate the ranking. This study may help ranking agencies evaluate approaches or a new policy for parameters weighted and researchers interested in research in this field.</p>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072922022-03-09T09:44:40-05:002022-03-09T09:44:40-05:00Publication Model, Ownership and Impact of the Top Endocrinology Journals | Journal of the Endocrine Society | Oxford Academic<h2>Abstract</h2>
<p>Background: Subscription-based (SB) is the traditional publication model for peer-reviewed research; however, open-access (OA) models have been rising in popularity in recent years. Journals may be owned by commercial, professional society, university or government publishers. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals.</p>
<p>Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the publication model, ownership and SJR indicator of the top Endocrinology journals. This will help inform researchers’ decisions when selecting a journal to submit their work to.</p>
<p>Methods: The SCImagoJR website was used to obtain a database of active, peer-reviewed Endocrinology journals worldwide. Publishers were grouped by parent company and categorized as commercial, professional society, university or government. Journals were searched on the National Library of Medicine catalogue to determine whether they are indexed on MEDLINE. Data was analyzed using IBM Statistics version 25. Fischer’s exact test was performed to assess the distribution of publication model and indexing status. Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to assess the distribution of SJR.</p>
<p>Results: 207 Endocrinology journals were included; 134 SB (64.73%) and 73 OA (35.27%). 122 journals are indexed in MEDLINE. The top three publishers of Endocrinology journals are Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley, all of which are commercial entities. They collectively own 91/207 (43.96%) Endocrinology journals and 70/122 (57.38%) MEDLINE-indexed journals. The top three publishers own more SB than OA journals, though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.080). There was no significant difference in the distribution of indexing status across the top three publishers (p = 0.250) and the four publisher types (p = 0.928). There were significantly more SB than OA journals indexed in MEDLINE (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the distribution of SJR indicator across the top three publishers (p = 0.283) and publisher types (p = 0.873) (see Table 1). SB journals had significantly higher SJR indicators compared to OA journals (all journals, p = 0.002; indexed journals only, p = 0.013).</p>
<p>CONCLUSIONS: Endocrinology journals are largely controlled by a few commercial entities and are primarily SB. Compared to OA, SB journals have significantly higher SJR indicators, meaning they are more influential. This is an important consideration for researchers when considering where to submit their work.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072952022-03-09T09:54:35-05:002022-03-09T09:54:35-05:00Adopting open access in an emerging country: Is gender inequality a barrier in humanities and social sciences? - Vuong - 2021 - Learned Publishing - Wiley Online Library<div>
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<div>
<p>The participation of women in Vietnam's social sciences and humanities research has increased during the last several decades. However, they still face various challenges, such as the 'glass ceiling', social stereotypes, low recognition, and underrepresentation. The open-access (OA) movement, being advocated for connecting science and community and improving scientists' visibility, offers a viable platform to increase participation of female researchers. This research investigated participation of Vietnamese women in 3,122 Social Sciences & Humanities publications during 2008–2019. Results show a rapid increase in female authors during the period, rising from 47.27% to 71.43% of articles having one or more Vietnamese female author. However, the number of women as first authors remained lower than men, with only 397 publications having a female first author. Bayesian analysis showed that although the number of coauthors was positively associated with the likelihood to publish in an OA journal, there was a negative association between Vietnamese female author participation and the likelihood to publish OA, a finding that matched the effect of female contribution from other countries. These findings hint at the gender inequality induced by cultural and socio-economic factors, and we postulate that the influence of financial and other inequalities may limit the ability of women to take full advantage of OA publication to further their careers.</p>
</div>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/29433612021-04-04T10:24:19-04:002022-01-27T09:58:08-05:00The open access advantage for studies of human electrophysiology: Impact on citations and Altmetrics - ScienceDirect<p>"Highlights</p>
<p>• Barriers to accessing science contributes to knowledge inequalities</p>
<p>• 35% of articles published in the last 20 years in electrophysiology are open access.</p>
<p>• Open access articles received 9–21% more citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions.</p>
<p>• Green open access (author archived) enjoyed similar benefit as Gold open access.</p>
<p>• Studies of human electrophysiology enjoy the “open access advantage” in citations...."</p>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/29421992021-04-03T10:12:18-04:002022-06-23T08:00:16-04:00What happens when a journal converts to Open Access? A bibliometric analysisAbstract: In recent years, increased stakeholder pressure to transition research to Open Access has led to many journals converting, or 'flipping', from a closed access (CA) to an open access (OA) publishing model. Changing the publishing model can influence the decision of authors to submit their papers to a journal, and increased article accessibility may influence citation behaviour. In this paper we aimed to understand how flipping a journal to an OA model influences the journal's future publication volumes and citation impact. We analysed two independent sets of journals that had flipped to an OA model, one from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and one from the Open Access Directory (OAD), and compared their development with two respective control groups of similar journals. For bibliometric analyses, journals were matched to the Scopus database. We assessed changes in the number of articles published over time, as well as two citation metrics at the journal and article level: the normalised impact factor (IF) and the average relative citations (ARC), respectively. Our results show that overall, journals that flipped to an OA model increased their publication output compared to journals that remained closed. Mean normalised IF and ARC also generally increased following the flip to an OA model, at a greater rate than was observed in the control groups. However, the changes appear to vary largely by scientific discipline. Overall, these results indicate that flipping to an OA publishing model can bring positive changes to a journal.
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/29230542021-03-22T12:19:39-04:002022-01-27T09:56:15-05:00Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals | Emerald Insight<p>Abstract: Purpose</p>
<p>The purpose of this paper is to look at two particular aspects of open access megajournals, a new type of scholarly journals. Such journals only review for scientific soundness and leave the judgment of scientific impact to the readers. The two leading journals currently each publish more than 20,000 articles per year. The publishing speed of such journals and acceptance rates of such journals are the topics of the study.</p>
<p>Design/methodology/approach</p>
<p>Submission, acceptance and publication dates for a sample of articles in 12 megajournals were manually extracted from the articles. Information about acceptance rates was obtained using web searches of journal home pages, editorials, blogs, etc.</p>
<p>Findings</p>
<p>The time from submission to publication varies a lot, with engineering megajournals publishing much more rapidly. But on average it takes almost half a year to get published, particularly in the high-volume biomedical journals. As some of the journals have grown in publication volume, the average review time has increased by almost two months. Acceptance rates have slightly decreased over the past five years, and are now in the range of 50–55 percent.</p>
<p>Originality/value</p>
<p>This is the first empirical study of how long it takes to get published in megajournals and it highlights a clear increase of around two months in publishing. Currently, the review process in the biomedical megajournals takes as long as in regular more selective journals in the same fields. Possible explanations could be increasing difficulties in finding willing and motivated reviewers and in a higher share of submissions from developing countries.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34403412022-01-28T06:33:14-05:002022-01-28T08:54:07-05:00The open access usage advantage: a temporal and spatial analysis | SpringerLink<p>Abstract: In this study, we compare the article impact in terms of article usage between open access (OA) and non-open access (Non-OA) articles from both the temporal and spatial perspectives. Articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were selected as our research objects. Daily article metric data have been tracked and collected from nejm.org and updated every day for over a year. The results of the study confirm the OA usage advantage to a certain extent. OA increases the article views, expands the geographical scope of article readers, and promotes knowledge diffusion. However, the delayed OA policy has no obvious improvement on the OA effects.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34391162022-01-27T09:52:01-05:002022-01-28T08:49:07-05:00How Accessible are Journal Articles on Education Written by Sub‐Saharan Africa‐based Researchers? - Asare - 2021 - Development and Change - Wiley Online Library<p>This article investigates the extent to which education publications authored by researchers based in sub-Saharan Africa are published as open access (OA). We draw on bibliometric analysis of 1,858 peer-reviewed articles over the period 2010‒18, together with interviews with 31 academics based in the region. Overall, we find a steady increase in OA publishing in the region over this period, although the proportion of OA publications remains low. The study finds that: (1) open access articles by researchers in sub-Saharan Africa are concentrated in journals with a lower impact factor; and (2) authors in sub-Saharan Africa tend to publish in higher quality journals behind a paywall, rather than in lower quality journals that either have no or lower cost for open access.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/30718942021-06-13T10:12:35-04:002022-01-28T06:06:58-05:00Gold Route Open Access Journals in Engineering and Technology: Analysis of Research Impact and Implications for Scholarly Communication | Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship<p>Abstract: The study examined the research impact of gold open access (OA) journals in engineering and technology. A total of 37 gold route journals that request article processing charges (APC) and 66 other OA journals without APC in the field were found in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and used for the study. The publishers, APC charges and the year each journal was added to DOAJ were identified and included in this study An informetric approach was used to extract research impact indicators (citations, paper productivity, cite/paper, cite/journal and h-index) of journals. Findings revealed that the publishers of the APC journals were dominated by commercial publishing companies producing over 60% of the journals. Article processing charges ranged from 7.6 USD to 3471.5 USD while the average article processing charges for APC journals was 727 USD. Gold route open access (APC) journals performed better than open access non-APC OA journals since they produced 51.2% of the papers, 71.8% of the total citations and 65.1% of the total h-index. However, findings showed a weak positive correlation between articles processing charges (APC) of the gold route journals and their research impact; while there is high significant positive correlation between research impact of gold route (APC journals) and non-APC open access journals.</p>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/37072632022-03-09T08:53:39-05:002022-03-09T08:53:39-05:00Cureus | Publishing in Hematology Journals: A Scientometric and Economic Evaluation<div>
<h3>Abstract</h3>
<p>Introduction: Herein, we aimed to compare the scientometric data of hematology journals, and compare the publication models, especially the scientometric data of journals with all-open access (OA) and hybrid-OA publication models.</p>
<p>Methods: Data were obtained from Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Analytics InCites websites. Fifty-four journals indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI) and SCI-Expanded were evaluated. Bibliometric data and impact factor (IF), scientific journal rank (SJR), eigenfactor score (ES), and Hirsch (h)-index of the journals were obtained. United States dollar (USD) was used as the requested article publishing charge (APC). Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) version 23.0 was used for data analysis.</p>
<p>Results: As a publication model, Hybrid-OA was the most common. One journal had subscription-only, and two journals had a free-OA model. Nine journals had a mandatory OA with the APC model and 42 journals used a hybrid model. The Median OA fee was 3400 USD. Hybrid-OA journals had a significantly higher median h-index (72 vs. 40, p=0.03) compared to all-OA journals. Other scientometric indexes were similar. When APCs were compared, all-OA journals were median 900 USD lower than hybrid-OA journals (2490 vs. 3400 USD, p=0.019).</p>
<p>Conclusion: There is a widespread use of the OA publication model in hematology journals. Although hybrid OA journals have higher h-index, other scientometric indexes are similar. All-OA journals are more economically feasible considering a lower median APC. Further scientometric studies for journals in the field of hematology, randomized to follow citation per publication according to the OA model would better shed light on the data in this area.</p>
</div>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/28236892020-11-25T12:34:17-05:002022-01-28T06:47:59-05:00Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities | SpringerLink<p>Abstract: In the current article, we tested our hypothesis by which high-impact journals tend to have higher Article Processing Charges (APCs) by comparing journal IF metrics with the OA publishing fees they charge. Our study engaged with both journals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and included Hybrid, Diamond and No OA journals. The overall findings demonstrate a positive relationship between APCs and journals with high IF for two of the subject areas we examined but not for the third, which could be mediated by the characteristics and market environment of the publishers. We also found significant differences between the analysed research fields in terms of APC policies, as well as differences in the relationship between APCs and the IF across periodicals. The study and analysis conducted reinforces our concerns that Hybrid OA models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production.</p>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34403472022-01-28T07:07:05-05:002022-01-28T08:56:53-05:00Results of a bibliometric analysis of research content contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals | Zenodo<p>Abstract: This analysis is part of a partnership between the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), the Dutch University Libraries and the National Library consortium (UKB) and Springer Nature, and has the objective to assess the volume, utilisation and impact that research outputs contributing to the various Sustainable Development Goals have. It includes a comparative element of open access versus non-open access SDG content as well as country comparisons, with a special focus on the Netherlands.</p>