Do open access journal articles experience a citation advantage? Results and methodological reflections of an application of multiple measures to an analysis by WoS subject areas

Establishing open science research priorities in health psychology: a research prioritisation Delphi exercise

OBJECTIVE

Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology.

METHODS AND MEASURES

An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a 'long-list' of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3).

RESULTS

The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. 'To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?', 2. 'How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?', 3. 'How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?', 4. 'What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?' and 5. 'How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?'.

CONCLUSION

Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here.

How predictive is peer review for gauging impact? The association between reviewer rating scores, publication status, and article impact measured by citations in a pain subspecialty journal

BACKGROUND

Peer review represents a cornerstone of the scientific process, yet few studies have evaluated its association with scientific impact. The objective of this study is to assess the association of peer review scores with measures of impact for manuscripts submitted and ultimately published.

METHODS

3173 manuscripts submitted to Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) between August 2018 and October 2021 were analyzed, with those containing an abstract included. Articles were categorized by topic, type, acceptance status, author demographics and open-access status. Articles were scored based on means for the initial peer review where each reviewer's recommendation was assigned a number: 5 for 'accept', 3 for 'minor revision', 2 for 'major revision' and 0 for 'reject'. Articles were further classified by whether any reviewers recommended 'reject'. Rejected articles were analyzed to determine whether they were subsequently published in an indexed journal, and their citations were compared with those of accepted articles when the impact factor was <1.4 points lower than RAPM's 5.1 impact factor. The main outcome measure was the number of Clarivate citations within 2 years from publication. Secondary outcome measures were Google Scholar citations within 2 years and Altmetric score.

RESULTS

422 articles met inclusion criteria for analysis. There was no significant correlation between the number of Clarivate 2-year review citations and reviewer rating score (r=0.038, p=0.47), Google Scholar citations (r=0.053, p=0.31) or Altmetric score (p=0.38). There was no significant difference in 2-year Clarivate citations between accepted (median (IQR) 5 (2-10)) and rejected manuscripts published in journals with impact factors >3.7 (median 5 (2-7); p=0.39). Altmetric score was significantly higher for RAPM-published papers compared with RAPM-rejected ones (median 10 (5-17) vs 1 (0-2); p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Peer review rating scores were not associated with citations, though the impact of peer review on quality and association with other metrics remains unclear.

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science

Biomedical fields have seen a remarkable increase in hybrid Gold open access articles. However, it is uncertain whether the hybrid Gold open access option contributes to a citation advantage, an increase in the citations of articles made immediately available as open access regardless of the article’s quality or whether it involves a trending topic of discussion. This study aimed to compare the citation counts of hybrid Gold open access articles to subscription articles published in hybrid journals. The study aimed to ascertain if hybrid Gold open access publications yield an advantage in terms of citations. This cross-sectional study included the list of hybrid journals under 59 categories in the ‘Clinical Medicine’ group from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR) during 2018–2021. The number of citable items with ‘Gold Open Access’ and ‘Subscription and Free to Read’ in each journal, as well as the number of citations of those citable items, were extracted from JCR. A hybrid Gold open access citation advantage was computed by dividing the number of citations per citable item with hybrid Gold open access by the number of citations per citable item with a subscription. A total of 498, 636, 1009, and 1328 hybrid journals in the 2018 JCR, 2019 JCR, 2020 JCR, and 2021 JCR, respectively, were included in this study. The citation advantage of hybrid Gold open access articles over subscription articles in 2018 was 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24–1.65); in 2019, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.41); in 2020, it was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.20–1.39); and in 2021, it was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20–1.42). In the ‘Clinical Medicine’ discipline, the articles published in the hybrid journal as hybrid Gold open access had a greater number of citations when compared to those published as a subscription, self-archived, or otherwise openly accessible option.

Empirical investigation of e-health intervention in cervical cancer screening: A systematic literature review

Cervical cancer (CC) screening can detect the cancer early but is underutilized, especially among the developing countries and low- to middle-income countries. Electronic health (e-health) has the potential for disseminating health education and is widely used in the developed countries. This systematic literature review investigates the effectiveness of e-health intervention for improving knowledge of CC and the intention or uptake for CC screening. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and registered with PROSPERO (registration ID CRD42021276036). We searched the Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO Medline Complete databases for eligible studies. Studies that conveyed informational material through e-health intervention were selected. The results were analyzed using narrative synthesis, and the pooled estimates were calculated using meta-analysis. A total of six studies involving 1886 women were included in this review. The use of e-health aids alone led to increased knowledge. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the mixed-education method of e-health movies and video education with didactic sessions increased CC screening uptake. A random-effects model revealed that CC screening uptake following e-health interventions were almost double of that of their comparison (odds ratio = 2.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.28–4.10, p < 0.05). Various areas of study demonstrated e-health intervention effectiveness (minority communities, urban areas, rural areas). Health education through e-health intervention has huge potential for promoting CC screening in the community. Nevertheless, the use of appropriate frameworks, user engagement and culturally tailored e-health need to be prioritized.

Global Research Trends in the Latarjet Procedure: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Background and Objectives: Latarjet is among the procedures indicated to treat shoulder instability, producing excellent results, including low instability rates and high patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to report the characteristics of scientific articles that address the subject of the Latarjet procedure through the use of bibliometric analysis. Materials and Methods: Bibliographic searches were performed for original articles published in journals indexed by the Web of Science database until 2021, with no language restrictions. Results: A total of 668 articles published in 87 journals were included. The first publication was in 1981; the most registered publications were in 2018 and 2021 (89 articles), with an annual percentage growth rate of 11.9. Provencher MT was the author with the most published articles, and the institutional affiliation with the most original articles was the Steadman Philippon Research Institute. The most cited article was a study by Burkhart and Beer, and the scientific journal with the most publications on the subject was the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Most published studies included keywords such as dislocation, instability, and meta-analysis. Conclusion: There has been a sustained increase in original articles on the Latarjet procedure. However, the greatest growth in articles has occurred during the last decade, demonstrating the considerable interest among the world scientific community.

Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016–12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice’s prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science

With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.

Citation Advantage of Promoted Articles in a Cross-Publisher Distribution Platform: 36-Month Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

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.