Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature.

Abstract

The methodological quality of open access studies has long been questioned due to increasing popularity and accessibility. The objective of this study is to compare the methodological quality of open access versus traditional journal publications in the plastic surgery literature. Four traditional plastic surgery journals with their sister open access journals were chosen. For each of the eight journals, 10 articles were randomly selected for inclusion. Methodological quality was examined using validated instruments. Publication descriptors were compared to methodological quality values using ANOVA. Logistic regression was used to compare quality scores between open access and traditional journals. There was a wide distribution of levels of evidence, with a quarter being level one. Regression of non-randomized studies indicated a significantly higher proportion of traditional journal articles were of high methodological quality (89.6%) when compared to open access journals (55.6%; p < 0.05). This difference persisted in three quarter of the sister journal groups. No publication descriptions were associated with methodological quality. Methodological quality scores were higher among traditional access journals. Higher degrees of peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in open access plastic surgery publications. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .