Citation Advantage Research Articles

Do Open Access Articles Have a Citation Advantage Over Toll Access Articles? A Comparative Analysis of Articles Published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery From 2019 to 2023 Based on Web of Science Data.

This study aimed to compare the citation rates of open access (OA), and toll access (TA) articles published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery between 2019 and 2023, and to examine whether OA articles received more citations. Using the Web of Science database, articles published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery between 2019 and 2023 were listed, excluding those with corrections or retractions. Articles were divided into 2 groups: OA and TA. The number of articles and citation counts for each group were analyzed by year. Citation rates were compared using the independent sample t test, with a p-value of <0.05 considered statistically significant. A total of 4691 articles were analyzed, of which 7.14% were OA and 92.86% were TA. Published in 2021, 2020, and 2019, OA articles had statistically significantly higher citation counts than TA articles. OA articles were found to be funded at a higher rate than TA articles. This study demonstrated that OA articles received more citations over time and were more likely to be funded. Although it is not definitively clear whether the citation advantage stems from the quality of the articles or their open-access status, the citation advantage of OA articles is striking.

An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations.

Calls to make scientific research more open have gained traction with a range of societal stakeholders. Open Science practices include but are not limited to the early sharing of results via preprints and openly sharing outputs such as data and code to make research more reproducible and extensible. Existing evidence shows that adopting Open Science practices has effects in several domains. In this study, we investigate whether adopting one or more Open Science practices leads to significantly higher citations for an associated publication, which is one form of academic impact. We use a novel dataset known as Open Science Indicators, produced by PLOS and DataSeer, which includes all PLOS publications from 2018 to 2023 as well as a comparison group sampled from the PMC Open Access Subset. In total, we analyze circa 122'000 publications. We calculate publication and author-level citation indicators and use a broad set of control variables to isolate the effect of Open Science Indicators on received citations. We show that Open Science practices are adopted to different degrees across scientific disciplines. We find that the early release of a publication as a preprint correlates with a significant positive citation advantage of about 20.2% (±.7) on average. We also find that sharing data in an online repository correlates with a smaller yet still positive citation advantage of 4.3% (±.8) on average. However, we do not find a significant citation advantage for sharing code. Further research is needed on additional or alternative measures of impact beyond citations. Our results are likely to be of interest to researchers, as well as publishers, research funders, and policymakers.

Field‐specific gold open access dynamics in the Chinese mainland: Overviews, disparities, and strategic insights

AbstractGold Open Access (OA) journals are crucial for scholarly communication, highlighting the need for a thorough evaluation of their academic influence on different research fields. This study leverages the InCites platform to examine article‐level characteristics relating to 22 Essential Science Indicators (ESI) research fields, with a focus on the dynamics of gold OA articles, including gold OA uptake in the Chinese mainland and gold OA adoption in the domestic English‐language academic journal publishing of the Chinese mainland. The findings reveal that disparities in gold OA adoption across 22 ESI fields are more pronounced in the Chinese mainland compared with the world scenario. In the Chinese mainland, there is a significant polarization in gold OA publishing volumes across different ESI fields, particularly in Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, and Engineering. This study builds on the understanding of OA citation advantage (OACA) by incorporating gold OA publishing volume into a two‐dimensional framework, resulting in the development of a “distance” metric. It further categorizes gold OA citation effects into four quadrants: positive citation effects (quadrants A and B) and negative citation effects (quadrants C and D), based on category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and journal normalized citation impact (JNCI) indicators from the InCites database. The findings underscore the importance of developing tailored strategies to address field‐specific challenges and promote gold OA dynamics in the Chinese mainland; while prioritizing high‐quality gold OA journals is essential for fostering gold OA development in the rest of the world.

Unlocking Scholarly Realms: Revealing Discipline‐Specific Publication and Citation Benefits in Open Access

ABSTRACTThis bibliometric analysis examines research publications from Israel, Austria, and Mexico (2010–2020) using Scopus data. The selection of Austria and Mexico as comparators to Israel was based on SCImago rankings. Top four disciplines were chosen for Health, Physical, and Life Sciences (HPL) and Social and Humanities Sciences (SSH). The findings indicate a distinct preference for closed‐access publications; however, a clear ‘open access citation advantage’ emerges nonetheless. Notably, Israel has the lowest SSH publications in open access, yet the highest in closed access. Conversely, open‐access HPL publications receive more citations than closed access across all countries. Despite fewer open‐access articles, Israel's HPL research surpasses Austria in citations. In SSH, Israel, and Austria's open‐access articles attract more citations, while Mexico shows no significant difference. These findings provide insights into publication dynamics, disciplinary influences, and citation patterns.

Machine learning misclassification networks reveal a citation advantage of interdisciplinary publications only in high-impact journals

Given a large enough volume of data and precise, meaningful categories, training a statistical model to solve a classification problem is straightforward and has become a standard application of machine learning (ML). If the categories are not precise, but rather fuzzy, as in the case of scientific disciplines, the systematic failures of ML classification can be informative about properties of the underlying categories. Here we classify a large volume of academic publications using only the abstract as information. From the publications that are classified differently by journal categories and ML categories (i.e., misclassified publications, when using the journal assignment as ground truth) we construct a network among disciplines. Analysis of these misclassifications provides insight in two topics at the core of the science of science: (1) Mapping out the interplay of disciplines. We show that this misclassification network is informative about the interplay of academic disciplines and it is similar to, but distinct from, a citation-based map of science, where nodes are scientific disciplines and an edge indicates a strong co-citation count between publications in these disciplines. (2) Analyzing the success of interdisciplinarity. By evaluating the citation patterns of publications, we show that misclassification can be linked to interdisciplinarity and, furthermore, that misclassified articles have different citation frequencies than correctly classified articles: In the highest 10 percent of journals in each discipline, these misclassified articles are on average cited more frequently, while in the rest of the journals they are cited less frequently.

Research funding in different SCI disciplines: A comparison analysis based on Web of Science

Abstract To provide valuable insights for shaping future funding policies, in this study, we offer a comprehensive panorama of the research funding across 171 SCI disciplines in the decade 2011–2020, based on more than 13 million scientific literature records from the Web of Science. The relationship between funding and research impact is also explored. To this end, we employ two indicators: the universality and multiplicity of funding, to indicate the funding level and six indicators to gauge the impact advantages of funding. Our findings reveal an upward trend in both the universality (increasing from 66.30% to 74.26%) and multiplicity (increasing from 2.82 to 3.26) of funding over the decade concerned. The allocation of funding varies across disciplines, with life sciences and earth sciences receiving the highest percentage of funding (78.31%) and medicine having the highest multiplicity of funding (3.07). Engineering and computer science have seen relatively rapid growth in terms of universality and multiplicity of funding. Funded articles have a greater impact than unfunded ones. And this impact strengthens as the number of funding grants increases. Through regression analysis, the citation advantage of funding is also proven at the article level, although the usage advantage is not significant.

Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals

Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

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.

Open access transition in obstetrics and gynecology journals-The international impact.

To study the impact of converting from subscription-based publishing to open access ("flipping") in three obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) journals. We compared original articles in three OBGYN journals during a matched subscription-based and open access publishing period. We analyzed citation metrics and country of authorship. Overall, 1522 studies were included; of those, 869 (57.1%) were before flipping and 653 (42.9%) were after flipping. There was a decrease in publications by lower-middle income countries from 7.7% in subscription-based publishing to 1.8% in open access (P < 0.001). There was a decrease in the proportion of articles from South Asia (2.5% vs 0.5%), North America (14.4% vs 9.4%), and the Middle East (7.4% vs 2.5%), and an increase in publications from East Asia and Pacific (17.4% vs 30.9%; P < 0.001). The relative citation ratio was higher in the open access period (median 1.65 vs 0.95, P < 0.001). The number of citations per year was higher in the open access period (median 3.0 vs 2.0, P < 0.001). There was an increase in the proportion of funded studies (from 40.2% to 47.8%; P = 0.003). Flipping to open access in OBGYN journals is associated with a citation advantage with major authorship changes, leading to inequity.

Understanding co‐corresponding authorship: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview

AbstractThe phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross‐disciplinary, and large‐scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co‐corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co‐corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high‐quality journals usually have higher proportions of co‐corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.

Independent society publishers and the path to open scholarship

Independent society publishers and the path to open scholarship

Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology.MethodA cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer...

Citation differences across research funding and access modalities

This research provides insight into the complex relationship between open access, funding, and citation advantage. It presents an analysis of research articles and their citations in the Scopus database across 40 subject categories. The sample includes 12 categories from Health Sciences, 7 from Life Sciences, 10 from Physical Sciences & Engineering, and 11 from Social Sciences & Humanities. Specifically, the analysis focuses on articles published in 2016 and the citations they received from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that open access articles published in hybrid journals receive considerably more citations than those published in gold open access journals. Articles under the hybrid gold modality are cited on average twice as much as those in the gold modality, regardless of funding. Furthermore, we found that funded articles generally obtain 50 % more citations than unfunded ones within the same publication modality. Open access repositories significantly increase citations, particularly for articles without funding. Thus, articles in open access repositories receive 50 % more citations than paywalled ones.

Citation advantage of COVID-19-related publications

With the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists from various disciplines responded quickly to this historical public health emergency. The sudden boom of COVID-19-related papers in a short period of time may bring unexpected influence to some commonly used bibliometric indicators. By a large-scale investigation using Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, this brief communication confirms the citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers empirically through the lens of Essential Science Indicators’ highly cited paper. More than 8% of COVID-19-related papers published during 2020 and 2021 were selected as Essential Science Indicators highly cited papers, which was much higher than the set global benchmark value of 1%. The citation advantage of COVID-19-related papers for different Web of Science categories/countries/journal impact factor quartiles was also demonstrated. The distortions of COVID-19-related papers’ citation advantage to some bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factor were discussed at the end of this brief communication.

Which factors are associated with Open Access publishing? A Springer Nature case study

Abstract Open Access (OA) facilitates access to research articles. However, authors or funders often must pay the publishing costs, preventing authors who do not receive financial support from participating in OA publishing and gaining citation advantage for OA articles. OA may exacerbate existing inequalities in the publication system rather than overcome them. To investigate this, we studied 522,411 articles published by Springer Nature. Employing correlation and regression analyses, we describe the relationship between authors affiliated with countries from different income levels, their choice of publishing model, and the citation impact of their papers. A machine learning classification method helped us to explore the importance of different features in predicting the publishing model. The results show that authors eligible for article processing charge (APC) waivers publish more in gold OA journals than others. In contrast, authors eligible for an APC discount have the lowest ratio of OA publications, leading to the assumption that this discount insufficiently motivates authors to publish in gold OA journals. We found a strong correlation between the journal rank and the publishing model in gold OA journals, whereas the OA option is mostly avoided in hybrid journals. Also, results show that the countries’ income level, seniority, and experience with OA publications are the most predictive factors for OA publishing in hybrid journals.

An Investigation of Open Access Availability of Library and Information Science Research

&#x0D; The study aims to investigate the Open Access (OA) availability of Library and Information Science (LIS) research and determine the extent to which research published in high-impact LIS journals is openly available to researchers via different OA routes. Using Google Scholar Metrics, ten core high-impact LIS journals were selected to collect the required data for the study. Bibliographic and citation details of each article published in these journals during 2016-2020 were extracted by searching the ISSN of each journal in the document search option of the Scopus database. The OA status of each article (Gold, Hybrid Gold, Green, and Bronze) was determined by querying the DOI API using the Simple Query Tool of Unpaywall. The findings show that LIS journals reviewed in this study demand $2500 to $3500 as an Article Processing Charge (APC). Almost all the journals have explicit self-archiving policies and lenient restrictions for making articles OA. However, accepted articles can be made available OA at designated Web locations after an embargo of 12months. The study’s findings indicate that 36.5 % of the total 5029 articles published during 2016-2020 in selected LIS journals were OA. Of the total OA articles, around 29 % were available through the publishers’ Website (Gold or Bronze OA), and 71 % were available through the repositories (Green OA). The average citation rate for OA articles is 13.37, which is higher than that of non-OA articles, showing a clear citation advantage for OA articles over non-OA articles.

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.

Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship

Despite improvement in gender inequality in Australian science, the problem has not been fully addressed yet. To better understand the nature of gender inequality in Australian science, all gendered Australian first authored articles published between 2010 and 2020 and indexed in the Dimensions database were analysed. Field of Research (FoR) was used as the subject classification of articles and Field Citation Ratio (FCR) was used for citation comparison. Overall, the ratio of female to male first authored articles increased over the years, and this was true for all FoRs except for information and computing sciences. The ratio of single-authored articles by females was also improved over the study period. Females appeared to have a citation advantage, using Field Citation Ratio, over males in a few FoRs including mathematical sciences, chemical sciences, technology, built environment and design, studies in human society, law and legal studies, and studies in creative arts and writing. The average FCR for female first authored articles was greater than the average FCR for male first authored articles, including in a few fields such mathematical sciences where male authors outperformed females in terms of the number of articles.

Do open-access dermatology articles have higher citation counts than those with subscription-based access?

Open-access (OA) publishing is increasingly prevalent in dermatology, and many journals now offer hybrid options, including conventional (subscription-based access [SA]) publishing or OA (with an author publishing charge) in a subscription journal. OA publishing has been noted in many disciplines, but this has been rarely studied in dermatology. Using the Clarivate Journal Citation Report, we compiled a list of English-language dermatology hybrid OA journals containing more than 5% OA articles. We sampled any OA review or original research article in 4 issues from 2018 to 2019 and matched an equal number of SA articles. Citation count, citation count excluding self-citations and view counts found using Scopus and Altmetrics score were recorded for each article. Statistical analyses were performed using logistic and negative binomial models using R software. Twenty-seven hybrid dermatology journals were found, and 538 articles were sampled (269 OA, 269 SA). For both original research and review articles, OA articles had significantly higher mean citation counts (mean 13.2, standard deviation [SD] 17.0) compared to SA articles (mean 7.9, SD 8.8) (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P < .001) including when adjusted for time from publication. Original research OA articles had significantly higher citation counts than original research SA articles (excluding self-citations; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .003), and review articles also had OA citation advantage than review SA articles (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .008). There was, however, no significant difference in citation counts between review articles and original research articles (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.19-5.31; P = 1.000). There was no significant difference seen in view counts (OA: mean±SD 17.7±10.8; SA: mean±SD 17.1±12.4) and Altmetric score (OA: mean±SD 13.2±47.8; SA: mean±SD 6.3±25.0) between OA and SA articles. Potential confounders included the fact that more OA articles were published in Europe than in Asia, and pharmaceutical-funded articles were more likely to be published OA. We noted a higher citation count for OA articles than SA articles in dermatology hybrid journals. However, dermatology researchers should take into account confounding factors when deciding whether to increase the impact of their work by selecting OA over SA publishing.

Association Between Twitter Mention and Open-Access Status on Article Citation Metrics in the Field of Ophthalmology.

It is possible that social media use can boost not just articles' social impact but the number of citations and academic influence as well. If a positive correlation between Twitter usage and citation metrics exists in the ophthalmology literature, it is important to broadcast this information to the ophthalmology community so they can use Twitter to increase academic engagement with their research. There has also been an increase in the number of articles available as open access. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the presence of an open-access citation advantage in the field of ophthalmology. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between Twitter mention and open access status on citation metrics in the ophthalmology literature. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study comparing article citation metrics to Twitter mentions and open access status. We gathered data on ophthalmology research articles from the six highest-ranked ophthalmology journals published as part of a January 2019 issue. Data were collected in April 2022, 38 months after online publication. Data on citations for each article was based on Google Scholar and Scopus websites. The Altmetric Bookmarklet extension was used to determine the amount of social engagement each article received. The open-access status of each article was based on the status listed in its corresponding journal. Two-tailed t-tests were used to compare social media engagement and open access status with the number of Google Scholar and Scopus citations. A total of 102 original research articles were analyzed. 89 (87.3%) articles received a Twitter mention. Articles tweeted at least once had a significantly higher Google Scholar score (27.2 +/- 4) compared to articles not tweeted (16.4 +/- 1.7; 1.7-fold increase, p<0.05). Likewise, the average Scopus score was significantly higher for tweeted articles (18.6 +/- 2.6) compared to articles not tweeted (11.8 +/- 1.6; 1.6-fold increase, p<0.05). Articles listed as open access had a significantly higher number of Twitter mentions (11.8 +/- 1.8) compared to articles that were not open access (5.6 +/- 0.7; 2.1-fold increase, p<0.05). Open-access articles also had higher citation scores compared to articles that are not open access, but this relationship was not statistically significant. This is the first study to evaluate the relationship between article Twitter mention and citation score in the field of ophthalmology. It demonstrates a significant positive correlation between the article Twitter mention and citation score and provides further evidence that social media engagement can be beneficial to the dissemination of academic information. Further studies on the relationship between social media engagement and article dissemination are warranted in the field of ophthalmology.