A cross-sectional description of open access publication costs, policies and impact in emergency medicine and critical care journals

Access to evidence-based care: a systematic review of trauma and surgical literature costs across resource settings

Background

Evidence-based medicine has become the foundation for surgeons around the world to provide the most effective surgical care. However, the article processing charges (APCs) and subscription fees for surgical journals may be a barrier, particularly for those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objectives

The objective of this study was to define the current options for producers and consumers of surgical literature, inclusive of trauma, across resource settings.

Data sources

The Web of Science Core Collection database.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

A complete list of journals publishing surgical content between 2019 and 2020 was compiled. The most frequently indexed journals were reviewed using the individual journal websites to extract the type of access (ie, open, closed, hybrid), impact factors, publication languages, APCs, subscription pricing, and any discounts listed.

Results

The literature search revealed 4759 unique journals. The 500 most frequently indexed were reviewed. The mean APC for a fully open access surgical journal was US$1574 and for a hybrid surgical journal was US$3338. The average costs for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid surgical journal were US$434 and US$1878 for an individual and institution, respectively. When considering purchasing power parity, APCs and subscription costs ranged from 2 to 15 times more expensive in LMICs when compared with those in the USA.

Limitations

Primary search term was in English only, and only peer-reviewed journal articles were reviewed.

Conclusions or implications of key findings

Although initiatives exist to support peer-reviewed journals in LMICs, there is an exorbitant cost for authors in these countries, as well as those in high-income countries that are not affiliated with a large institution, to either publish in, or access, a majority of surgical journals. Efforts to lower the overall cost of publishing must be made to provide greater access to medical literature.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD4202140227.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Open(ing) Access: Top Health Publication Availability to Researchers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Introduction

Improving access to information for health professionals and researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is under-prioritized. This study examines publication policies that affect authors and readers from LMICs.

Methods

We used the SHERPA RoMEO database and publicly available publishing protocols to evaluate open access (OA) policies, article processing charges (APCs), subscription costs, and availability of health literature relevant to authors and readers in LMICs. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies with percentages. Continuous variables were reported with median and interquartile range (IQR). Hypothesis testing procedures were performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Wilcoxon rank sum exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

A total of 55 journals were included; 6 (11%) were Gold OA (access to readers and large charge for authors), 2 (3.6%) were subscription (charge for readers and small/no charge for authors), 4 (7.3%) were delayed OA (reader access with no charge after embargo), and 43 (78%) were hybrid (author's choice). There was no significant difference between median APC for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($4,850 [$3,500-$8,900] vs. $4,592 [$3,500-$5,000] vs. $3,550 [$3,200-$3,860]; p = 0.054). The median US individual subscription costs (USD/Year) were significantly different for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($259 [$209-$282] vs. $365 [$212-$744] vs. $455 [$365-$573]; p = 0.038), and similar for international readers. A total of seventeen journals (42%) had a subscription price that was higher for international readers than for US readers.

Conclusions

Most journals offer hybrid access services. Authors may be forced to choose between high cost with greater reach through OA and low cost with less reach publishing under the subscription model under current policies. International readers face higher costs. Such hindrances may be mitigated by a greater awareness and liberal utilization of OA policies.

The open access advantage for studies of human electrophysiology: Impact on citations and Altmetrics

Barriers to accessing scientific findings contribute to knowledge inequalities based on financial resources and decrease the transparency and rigor of scientific research. Recent initiatives aim to improve access to research as well as methodological rigor via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles (i.e., publisher archived) with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions. These findings demonstrate that open-access publishing is increasing in popularity in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and that open-access articles enjoy the "open access advantage" in citations similar to the larger scientific literature. The benefit of the open access advantage may motivate researchers to make their publications open access and pursue publication outlets that support it. In consideration of the direct connection between citations and journal impact factor, journal editors may improve the accessibility and impact of published articles by encouraging authors to self-archive manuscripts on preprint servers.

What happens to global health research: analysis of the full-length publication rates of research abstracts presented at two major global health conferences

BACKGROUND

Global health research has been expanding rapidly. The Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) and Global Health and Innovation Conference (GHIC) are the two major conferences for global health research. It is unclear how much of the presented research goes on to full-length publication.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine publication rates and journals of CUGH and GHIC research.

METHODS

A total of 1449 abstracts from CUGH and GHIC from 2014 to 2015 were searched by title, author and keywords using Google Scholar and PubMed. Publications were categorised according to WHO Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) categories.

RESULTS

Research was published in 293 journals at a rate of 34.0%, within an average of 15.1 months. The 15 MEDLINE indexed global health journals accounted for just 5.5% of publications.

DISCUSSION

Despite growth in global health research, publication rates from the two major conferences are low. The majority of publications in journals are not MEDLINE indexed global health journals. Improved publication and consolidation of global health research is critical.

CONCLUSION

Global health conference publication rates are low. Effective dissemination is critical as the field grows. This may require increased publishing support, improved indexing and consolidation of global health research.