1
|
Clark AD, Myers TC, Steury TD, Krzton A, Yanes J, Barber A, Barry J, Barua S, Eaton K, Gosavi D, Nance R, Pervaiz Z, Ugochukwu C, Hartman P, Stevison LS. Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology. PeerJ 2024; 12:e16824. [PMID: 38436005 PMCID: PMC10906259 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16824] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/02/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda D. Clark
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
- Department of Cell, Developmental, and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States of America
| | - Tanner C. Myers
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Todd D. Steury
- College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Ali Krzton
- Auburn University Libraries, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Julio Yanes
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Angela Barber
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Jacqueline Barry
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Subarna Barua
- Department of Pathobiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Katherine Eaton
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Devadatta Gosavi
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Rebecca Nance
- Department of Pathobiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Zahida Pervaiz
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Chidozie Ugochukwu
- Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Patricia Hartman
- Auburn University Libraries, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| | - Laurie S. Stevison
- Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Langham-Putrow A, Bakker C, Riegelman A. Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0253129. [PMID: 34161369 PMCID: PMC8221498 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2021] [Accepted: 06/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
AIMS Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)-increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)-has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles. METHODS A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type. RESULTS A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets. CONCLUSIONS As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison Langham-Putrow
- University of Minnesota Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America
| | - Caitlin Bakker
- University of Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries, Minneapolis MN, United States of America
| | - Amy Riegelman
- University of Minnesota Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Maryl M, Błaszczyńska M, Szulińska A, Rams P. The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities. F1000Res 2020; 9:1265. [PMID: 33520195 PMCID: PMC7816277 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.26545.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
This article presents a vision for a scholarly communication research infrastructure for social sciences and humanities (SSH). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the pressing need to access research outputs without the traditional economic and temporal barriers. This article explores the current scholarly communication landscape, assessing the reasons for the slower uptake of open access in SSH research. The authors discuss such frontiers as commercial interests, sources of academic prestige and discipline-specific genres. This article defines and discusses the key areas in which a research infrastructure can play a vital role in making open scholarly communication a reality in SSH: (1) providing a federated and easy access to scattered SSH outputs; (2) supporting publication and dissemination of discipline-specific genres (e.g. monographs, critical editions); (3) providing help with evaluation and quality assurance practices in SSH; (4) enabling scholarly work in national languages, which is significant for local communities; (5) being governed by researchers and for researchers as a crucial factor for productive, useful and accessible services; (6) lastly, considering the needs of other stakeholders involved in scholarly communication, such as publishers, libraries, media, non-profit organisations, and companies. They conclude that a scholarly-driven, inclusive, dedicated infrastructure for the European Research Area is needed in order to advance open science in SSH and to address the issues tackled by SSH researchers at a structural and systemic level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maciej Maryl
- Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland
| | - Marta Błaszczyńska
- Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Szulińska
- Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland
| | - Paweł Rams
- Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
Research topics vary in their citation potential. In a metric-wise scientific milieu, it would be probable that authors tend to select citation-attractive topics especially when choosing open access (OA) outlets that are more likely to attract citations. Applying a matched-pairs study design, this research aims to examine the role of research topics in the citation advantage of OA papers. Using a comparative citation analysis method, it investigates a sample of papers published in 47 Elsevier article processing charges (APC)-funded journals in different access models including non-open access (NOA), APC, Green and mixed Green-APC. The contents of the papers are analysed using natural language processing techniques at the title and abstract level and served as a basis to match the NOA papers to their peers in the OA models. The publication years and journals are controlled for in order to avoid their impacts on the citation numbers. According to the results, the OA citation advantage that is observed in the whole sample still holds even for the highly similar OA and NOA papers. This implies that the OA citation surplus is not an artefact of the OA and NOA papers’ differences in their topics and, therefore, in their citation potential. This leads to the conclusion that OA authors’ self-selectivity, if it exists at all, is not responsible for the OA citation advantage, at least as far as selection of topics with probably higher citation potentials is concerned.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hajar Sotudeh
- Department of Knowledge & Information Sciences, Faculty of Education & Psychology, Shiraz University, Iran
| |
Collapse
|