The long-term influence of Open Access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis

The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review

Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society's problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications.

Impact of COVID-19 Dentistry-Related Literature: An Altmetric Study

INTRODUCTION

Scientific literature on COVID-19 has grown rapidly during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the popularity on the web of the available dental publications on COVID-19 and to examine associations amongst article characteristics, online mentions, and citations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Altmetric Explorer search was conducted for COVID-19 articles published in dental journals using 3 keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and pandemic. The following Altmetric data were collected: Altmetric attention score (AAS), mentions by news outlets, tweets, Mendeley readers, and Web of Science citations. Additionally, article title, type, topic, origin and open access status, journal title, quartile of impact factor (IF) distribution, and time lapse between COVID-19 pandemic onset and publication date were analysed.

RESULTS

In all, 253 articles published in 48 dental journals were eligible for the study. AAS was significantly influenced by article topic, type, origin, and journal IF quartile. There was a negligible correlation between AAS and Web of Science citations. Mendeley was the only Altmetric source highly correlated with citations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial online interest in COVID-19 dentistry-related literature, as depicted by the AAS of the reviewed articles and social media metrics. Mendeley reader counts were highly correlated with citations, and they may therefore be valuable in research impact evaluation.

The Leading Transplantation Journals: A Trend Analysis, 2011-2021

Background

As the field of transplantation has expanded, so have the quantity and variety of articles published on the topic. Evaluation of publications and journals is crucial to the expansion of transplant research. This study investigated the research output and journal metrics of the leading solid organ transplant journals published between 2011 and 2021 based on estimations of the trends in the category CiteScore from the Scopus database.

Materials and Methods

We obtained data on the listed journals from the Scopus Source List. We then filtered the list for "Transplantation" journals. Only the top quartiles or quartile 1 (Q1) journals were placed in this category. This study focused specifically on transplantation journals and did not include other journals related to diseases of transplanted organs such as the kidney, liver, heart, and lungs.

Results

The number of transplantation journals increased by 42.8% in the last ten years, from 28 in 2011 to 40 in 2021. Between 2011 and 2021, nine transplantation journals ranked in the highest quartile (Q1). The American Journal of Transplantation was the top journal in both years, with a 150% increase in citations and an 11.2% increase in articles published. Open access (OA) transplant journals rose from 3 in 2011 to 10 in 2021. In 2021, OA journals earned 8,555 citations, a 125% increase from 2011. Despite this increase, non-OA journals received more citations than OA in 2021 (p value 0.026).

Conclusion

Solid organ transplantation advances lead to more publications and citations. Regular journals and publications evaluation benefits academics and policymakers by promoting the growth of research. This study examined solid organ transplantation journals and gave a global perspective on transplant journal rankings and compared their status in 2011 and 2021.

'Spin' among abstracts of randomised controlled trials in sleep medicine: A research-on-research study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

'Spin', using reporting strategies to distort study results, can mislead readers of medical research. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of 'spin' among randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in sleep medicine journals, and to identify factors associated with its presence and severity.

METHODS

The search for RCTs published between 2010 and 2020 were conducted in seven reputable journals of sleep medicine. Abstracts of RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes were included and analysed for 'spin', according to pre-determined 'spin' strategies. Chi-square tests or logistic regression analyses were performed to detect the association between characteristics of included abstracts and the presence and severity of 'spin'.

RESULTS

A total of 114 RCT abstracts were included in this study, of which 89 (78.1%) were identified as having at least one type of 'spin' strategy. Sixty-six abstracts (57.9%) had 'spin' in the Results section, 82 (71.9%) abstracts presented with 'spin' in the Conclusions section. The presence of 'spin' varied significantly among RCTs based on the different categories of research area (P=0.047) and the statistician involvement (P=0.045). Furthermore, research area (P=0.019) and funding status (P=0.033) were significant factors associated with the severity of 'spin'.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of 'spin' is high among RCT abstracts in sleep medicine. This raise the need for researchers, editors and other stakeholders to be aware of the issue of 'spin' and make joint efforts to eliminate it in future publications.

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal- and article-related information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open-Access and Subscription-Based Otolaryngology Journals

OBJECTIVE

To describe the academic impact and author characteristics of open-access journals in otolaryngology.

METHODS

Original articles from three open-access (OTO Open, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, and World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology) and three conventional subscription-based otolaryngology specific journals (Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery) were assessed. Publication dates of articles from January 2017 to July 2020 were included. Google Scholar and Web of Science citation counts were recorded. H-indexes of first and last authors were included according to Google Scholar and Web of Science and analyzed.

RESULTS

This analysis included 3284 articles. Articles published in open-access otolaryngology-specific journals had significantly fewer citations on average (6.8) than articles published in subscription-based journals (12.4, p < 0.0001). The last authors of articles published in subscription-based journals had significantly higher h-indexes (23.50) compared with the last authors of articles published in open-access journals (19.53, p < 0.0001). The first authors of articles published in open-access journals had similar h-indexes (10.26) as the first authors of articles published in subscription-based journals (10.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Articles published in open-access journals in otolaryngology were cited significantly less than those published in subscription-based journals. The h-index of the last authors was significantly lower in open-access journals; however, the h-index of the first authors was similar between open-access and subscription-based journals. As measured by citations, open-access publications do not yet appear to have the impact of subscription-based publications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 133:79-82, 2023.

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

As online media acquires increased utilization as a means of disseminating scientific research, Altmetric analyses are useful to identify socially impactful publications and their characteristics. Accordingly, the objective of this investigation was to determine the most mentioned articles online regarding craniofacial surgery and compare these articles with their most cited counterparts. Using the Web of Science database, 7097 craniofacial surgery publications were identified. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and average citations per year (ACpY) were extracted, and articles were ranked by their social and scientific impact. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational analyses were performed to examine characteristics including AAS, ACpY, country of origin, journal, open access (OA) status, publication year, study design, and topic. The average AAS of the 50 most mentioned articles was 83.68 (SD±107.40), and the average citation count of the 50 most cited articles was 76.38 (SD±35.15). OA status was significantly more prevalent among the most mentioned articles (24.0%) relative to all articles (10.72%) and the most cited articles (4.0%). The most mentioned and the most cited articles primarily originated from the United States (64.0% and 38.0%, respectively), discussed topics related to the medical and surgical management of patients (48.0% and 58.0%, respectively), and were systematic reviews (16.0% and 28.0%, respectively). However, there was significantly more geographic diversity in the latter cohort. In summary, this comparative examination reveals important differences between the most mentioned and most cited articles, highlighting the distinct utility of AAS and citation count when evaluating research impact.