Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact

The impact of open access on citations, Pageviews, and downloads: a scientometric analysis in Postgraduate Medical Journal

PURPOSE

The influence of Open Access (OA) on the citation impact of scholarly articles remains a topic of considerable debate. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between OA publication and citation metrics, as well as article visibility, within the context of the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 373 articles published in PMJ between 2020 and 2021. Data on OA status, citations, page views, PDF downloads, and other relevant variables were extracted from Journal Citation Reports and PMJ's official website. Multivariable linear regression and other statistical analyses were used to assess the impact of OA on these metrics.

RESULTS

OA articles (n = 78) demonstrated significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles (n = 295). Specifically, OA articles showed a significant increase in citation frequency with a β coefficient of 25.08 and a 95% CI of 17.168-32.992 (P < .001). Similarly, OA status was independently associated with increases in page views [β = 288.636, 95%CI: 177.749-399.524, P < .001] and PDF downloads [β = 118.966, 95%CI: 86.357-151.575, P < .001]. Strong correlations among total citations, page views, and PDF downloads were observed in both OA and subscription articles.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing.

Open Access: Opening or Closing Doors for Junior Faculty?

The Open Access movement has transformed the landscape of medical publishing. Federal regulations regarding Open Access have expanded in the USA, and journals have adapted by offering a variety of Open Access models that range widely in cost and accessibility. For junior faculty with little to no funding, navigating this ever-changing landscape while simultaneously balancing the pressures of publication and promotion may present a particular challenge. Open Access provides the opportunity to amplify the reach and impact of scientific research, yet it often comes at a cost that may not be universally affordable. In this perspective, we discuss the impact of Open Access through the lens of junior faculty in general internal medicine. We describe the potential benefits and pitfalls of Open Access on junior faculty with a focus on research dissemination and cost. Finally, we propose sustainable solutions at the individual and systems-level to help navigate the world of Open Access to promote career growth and development.

The bibliometric and altmetric analysis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy research: how great is the impact?

Background

The study of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has received great attention from academia and the general public. This study aims to analyze the research productivity on CTE and investigate the most discussed articles in academia and the general public by conducting bibliometric and altmetric analyses.

Methods

Data of articles were obtained from the Web of Science Core Databases and Altmetric Explore. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to analyze and visualize the articles. The correlation between Altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citation counts were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results

788 publications of CTE were eventually gathered and analyzed, and 100 articles with highest citation counts (Top-cited) and 100 articles with highest AASs (Top-AAS) were then identified. The keywords density map showed both the general public and the scientists were particularly interested in the risk factors and pathology of CTE, and scientists were interested in the causes and characteristics of neurodegenerative diseases while the public became increasingly concerned about the detection and prevention of CTE. By examining the shared characteristics of the 44 articles (High-High articles) that overlapped between Top-cited and Top-AAS articles, we identified certain traits that may potentially contribute to their high citation rates and high AASs. Besides, significant positive correlations with varied strength between AAS and citation were observed in the 788 articles, Top-cited, Top-AAS and High-High datasets.

Conclusion

This study is the first to link bibliometric and altmetric analyses for CTE publications, which may provide deeper understanding of the attention of the scientists and the general public pay to the study of CTE, and offer some guidance and inspiration for future CTE in the selection of research topics and directions.

Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices.

RESULTS

We identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.

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.

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.

'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.

Jumping over the paywall: Strategies and motivations for scholarly piracy and other alternatives

Despite the advance of the Open Access (OA) movement, most scholarly production can only be accessed through a paywall. We conduct an international survey among researchers (N  =  3304) to measure the willingness and motivations to use (or not use) scholarly piracy sites, and other alternatives to overcome a paywall such as paying with their own money, institutional loans, just reading the abstract, asking the corresponding author for a copy of the document, asking a colleague to get the document for them, or searching for an OA version of the paper. We also explore differences in terms of age, professional position, country income level, discipline, and commitment to OA. The results show that researchers most frequently look for OA versions of the documents. However, more than 50% of the participants have used a scholarly piracy site at least once. This is less common in high-income countries, and among older and better-established scholars. Regarding disciplines, such services were less used in Life & Health Sciences and Social Sciences. Those who have never used a pirate library highlighted ethical and legal objections or pointed out that they were not aware of the existence of such libraries.

Publication delays and associated factors in ophthalmology journals

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate the publication delays and correlative factors of peer-reviewed ophthalmology journals.

Methods

The ophthalmology journals listed in the Journal Citation Report 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. The first original research article of each journal issue from January to December 2020 was extracted, and its submission, final revision, acceptance, and publication dates were obtained. Information on impact factors, advance online publication (AOP) status, open access (OA) rate and acceptance rate in 2020 was also collected. The correlations between publication delays and potential associated factors were analyzed.

Results

A total of 58 ophthalmology journals were included and information on 685 articles was collected. The median times from submission to acceptance, from acceptance to publication, and from submission to publication were 118.0 (IQR, 74.0-185.0) days, 31.0 (IQR, 15.0-64.0) days, and 161.0 (IQR, 111.0-232.0) days, respectively. A higher impact factor was correlated with shorter delays of acceptance and publication (P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between acceptance rates and publication delays (r = 0.726, P = 0.007). Forty-seven (81.03%) journals provided AOP. There was no statistically significant difference for impact factors and publication delays between journal with and without AOP (all P > 0.05). No correlation between OA rate and publication delays or impact factors was detected (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Journals with higher impact factors and lower acceptance rates tend to have quicker publication processes. No significant associations were detected between publication delays and AOP or OA rate.

Open Access Fees: A Barrier to Scholarly Activity Among Neurology Trainees

The open access publishing model provides readers of all backgrounds access to articles free of charge. To cover the costs of open access, however, many journals now charge substantial article processing fees. This has inadvertently created yet another barrier for trainees to engage in scholarly activity. Herein, we describe the issue, review the literature, and provide suggestions for addressing this barrier with the focus on the neurology specialty.

Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles

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.

Citation advantage for open access articles in European Radiology

Objective

To investigate whether there is a difference in citation rate between open access and subscription access articles in the field of radiology.

Methods

This study included consecutive original articles published online in European Radiology. Pearson χ², Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess for any differences between open access and subscription access articles. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between open access publishing and citation rate, adjusted for continent of origin, subspeciality, study findings in article title, number of authors, number of references, length of the article, and number of days the article has been online. In a secondary analysis, we determined the association between open access and number of downloads and shares.

Results

A total of 500 original studies, of which 86 (17.2%) were open access and 414 (82.8%) were subscription access articles, were included. Articles from Europe or North America were significantly more frequently published open access (p = 0.024 and p = 0.001), while articles with corresponding authors from Asia were significantly less frequently published open access (p < 0.001). In adjusted linear regression analysis, open access articles were significantly more frequently cited (beta coefficient = 3.588, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.668 to 6.508, p = 0.016), downloaded (beta coefficient = 759.801, 95% CI 630.917 to 888.685, p < 0.001), and shared (beta coefficient = 0.748, 95% CI 0.124 to 1.372, p = 0.019) than subscription access articles (beta coefficient = 3.94, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 6.44, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Open access publishing is independently associated with an increased citation, download, and share rate in the field of radiology.

Key Points

• A minority of articles are currently published open access in European Radiology.

• European and North American authors tend to publish more open access articles than Asian authors.

• Open access publishing seems to offer an independent advantage in terms of citation, download, and share rate.

The impact of the open-access status on journal indices: oncology journals

BACKGROUND

The field of oncology is among the highest productive fields in medicine, with the highest impact journals. The impact of open access (OA) journals is still understudied in the field of oncology. In this study, we aim to study the open-access status of oncology journals and the impact of the open-access status on journal indices.

METHODS

We collected data on the included journals from Scopus Source List on 1st of November 2018. We filtered the list for oncology journals for the years from 2011 to 2017. OA journals covered by Scopus are indicated as OA if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD).

RESULTS

There were 318 oncology journals compared to 260 in 2011, an increase by about 24.2%, and the percentage of OA journals has increased from 19.6% to 23.9%. Although non-OA journals have significantly higher scholarly output (P=0.001), percent cited and source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) were higher for OA journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Publishing in oncology OA journals will yield more impact, in term of citations, and will reach boarder audience.

Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology

INTRODUCTION

The advent of open access publishing has allowed for unrestricted and rapid knowledge dissemination and can generate higher citation levels. However, the establishment of predatory journals exploits this model and may lead to publication of non-peer reviewed work.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the characteristics and trends of indexed publications in paediatric urology. The primary outcomes were to compare open access vs non-open access publishing. The secondary outcome was to assess whether any open access publications in this cohort could be classified as predatory based on journal data basing and external peer review policies.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase reviews were carried out for any publication using the terms 'p(a)ediatric urology' over a 5-year period (October 2012-2017). These publications were individually accessed, assessed for relevance and cross-checked using the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report. Bibliometric data, journal type and access model were all individually assessed, ranked and compared using descriptive and non-parametric statistical methods.

RESULTS

From an initial total of 4075 indexed publications, 2244 journal publications across 51 countries were included based on relevance, of which 611 were open access. Open access journals were significantly more likely to publish basic science/laboratory versus clinical publications (10.9% vs 3.3%). They were more likely have higher average citations/publication (17 vs. 8), but there was no difference between open and closed journal impact factors (3.1 vs. 2.7). The overall rate of open access, indexed publications that were not peer reviewed and/or included in open access databases was 6.5% DISCUSSION: The overall numbers of paediatric urological articles appearing on PubMed between 2012 and 2017 have increased by approximately 75%, while the number of open access articles has remained relatively static (25%). Researchers may prefer to publish in specific journals to disseminate results to a particular audience or fear in the current climate that an open access journal may not be considered legitimate, and possibly even predatory, thus having a negative impact on the data and the author's reputation. The impact factor status and route/method of publication may be less important.

CONCLUSIONS

Open access, peer reviewed publishing allows rapid international knowledge dissemination. The exact objective definition of what constitutes a predatory journal remains controversial. We have identified a time-stable prevalence of 6.5% open access publications that could meet proposed criteria for a 'borderline/predatory journal'; however, this should not influence the decision to publish in open access journals.

Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services

Objective

PubMed’s provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed’s composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed’s reliability, while exploring PubMed’s role in the current scholarly communications landscape.

Methods

The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.

Results

Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.

Conclusion

The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.

Temporal Trends (1999-2015) in the Impact Factor of Biomedical Journals Published by US and EU Scientific Societies

OBJECTIVE

The impact factor has emerged as the most popular index of scientific journals' resonance. In this study we aimed to examine the impact factor trends of journals published by scientific bodies in the United States of America (USA) and Europe (EU).

METHODS

We randomly chose 11 categories of Journal of Citation Reports and created three research classes: clinical medicine, laboratory medicine, and basic science. The impact factor values for the years 1999-2015 were abstracted, and the impact factor of US and EU journals was studied through the years.

RESULTS

A total of 265 journals were included in the final analysis. The impact factor of US journals was higher than that of EU journals throughout the study period. In addition, for both US and EU journals the median impact factor increased throughout the study period. The rate of annual change in the impact factor throughout the study period was lower for US than EU journals (1.85% versus 3.55%, P=0.019). A higher median annual increase was seen in the impact factor during the period 1999-2008 compared to the period 2009-2015 for both US (P<0.001) and EU (P=0.001) journals. In fact, during the second period the US median impact factor value did not show significant changes (P=0.31), while the EU median impact factor continued to increase (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The impact factor of EU journals increased at a significantly higher rate than and approached that of the US journals during the last 16 years.

Gold open access: the best of both worlds

Gold open access provides free distribution of trustworthy scientific knowledge for everyone. As publication modus, it has to withstand the bad reputation of predatory journals and overcome the preconceptions of those who believe that open access is synonymous with poor quality articles and high costs. Gold open access has a bright future and will serve the scientific community, clinicians without academic affiliations and the general public.