Full Open Access Journals Research Articles

Are open science practices in dentistry associated with higher Altmetric scores and citation rates?

AimOpen science, a set of principles and practices, aims to make scientific research more accessible and accountable, benefiting scientists and society. This study evaluated whether adopting open science practices (OSPs) correlates with higher citation rates and Altmetric scores. MethodsA random sample of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on dental caries published between 2000 and 2022 was selected. A systematic PubMed search identified relevant RCTs, and data on OSPs - study registration, open methodology, open software, open scripts, open analysis plan, open data, open peer review, and open access (OA) - were manually collected by two independent assessors. The Robot Reviewer tool automatically evaluated the risk of bias (RoB). Outcomes included the total number of citations and the Altmetric Attention Score. Associations between OSPs, RoB, and other explanatory variables with the outcomes were assessed using binomial negative regression analysis, and expressed as Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR; α =0.05). ResultsIn total, 323 papers were analysed. At least one OSP was adopted in 57.5 % (n = 186) of the articles, dropping to 39.6 % (n = 128) without OA. Papers with protocol registration (IRR: 1.45; 95 % CI: 1.15, 1.82) and OA publication (IRR: 1.24; 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.53) had higher citation rates. Conversely, papers in full OA journals had fewer citations (IRR: 0.67; 95 % CI: 0.52, 0.87). After adjusting for RoB, low-risk studies showed higher citation rates (IRR: 1.48; 95 % CI: 1.14, 1.91), while OA lost significance. For Altmetric scores, registered and OA manuscripts showed higher scores (IRR: 3.74; 95 % CI: 2.00, 7.01; IRR: 1.69; 95 % CI: 1.04, 2.75), with registration remaining significant after adjusting for RoB and impact factor (IRR: 3.71; 95 % CI: 1.97–6.99). ConclusionThe adoption of OSPs demonstrated a partial correlation with citation rates and Altmetric scores in RCTs on dental caries; however, these effects are complex and seem more related to the journal's impact factor. Clinical significanceThe citations and the attention to clinical trials in dentistry, which could drive clinical decision-making and the elaboration of policies and recommendations, seem to be driven more by the journal's prestige than by the adoption of OSPs.

A comparison of scientometric data and publication policies of ophthalmology journals.

Purpose:This retrospective database analysis study aims to present the scientometric data of journals publishing in the field of ophthalmology and to compare the scientometric data of ophthalmology journals according to the open access (OA) publishing policies.Methods:The scientometric data of 48 journals were obtained from Clarivate Analytics InCites and Scimago Journal & Country Rank websites. Journal impact factor (JIF), Eigenfactor score (ES), scientific journal ranking (SJR), and Hirsch index (HI) were included. The OA publishing policies were separated into full OA with publishing fees, full OA without fees, and hybrid OA. The fees were stated as US dollars (USD).Results:Four scientometric indexes had strong positive correlations; the highest correlation coefficients were observed between the SJR and JIF (R = 0.906) and the SJR and HI (R = 0.798). However, journals in the first quartile according to JIF were in the second and third quartiles according to the SJR and HI and in the fourth quartile in the ES. The OA articles published in hybrid journals received a median of 1.17-fold (0.15–2.71) more citations. Only HI was higher in hybrid OA; other scientometric indexes were similar with full OA journals. Full OA journals charged a median of 1525 USD lower than hybrid journals.Conclusion:Full OA model in ophthalmology journals does not have a positive effect on the scientometric indexes. In hybrid OA journals, choosing to publish OA may increase citations, but it would be more accurate to evaluate this on a journal basis.

Article processing charges, altmetrics and citation impact: Is there an economic rationale?

The present study aims to analyze (1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications (2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from Altmetrics.com database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the "number of readers" indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score.

An analysis of scientometric data and publication policies of rheumatology journals.

Scientometric indexes, based on citations, may be increased by open access (OA) publishing. We aimed to present the scientometric data of of rheumatology journals and analyze the scientometric data of rheumatology journals according to the OA publication policy. Scientometric indexes and bibliometric data of 22 journals were obtained from Clarivate Analytics InCites, Scopus, and Scimago Journal & Country Rank websites. We included journal impact factor (JIF), CiteScore (CS), Hirsch index (HI), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), Eigenfactor score (ES), and Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR). We separated the OA publishing policies into full OA and hybrid OA. The US dollar (USD) was used as the requested fee unit. All pairs of scientometric indexes had positive significant correlations. However, a journal in the first quartile of JIF was observed in the second quartile of CS, SNIP, and SJR, and the last quartile of ES and HI. Scientometric indexes of of full and hybrid OA journals were similar, apart from HI, which was higher in hybrid OA journals (p = 0.03, Mann-Whitney U test). However, full OA journal fees were less expensive by a median of 935 USD (p = 0.007, Mann-Whitney U test). We recommend that the JIF and HI pair or the ES paired with CS or SNIP be used together to evaluate rheumatology journals. We failed to show that the OA model positively affects the scientometric indexes of rheumatology journals; our results contradict the literature reporting that the OA publication model causes an increase in citations. Key Points •Clinicians should understand the scientometric indexes in rheumatology and if open access publishing affects citations (therefore, scientometric indexes). •The JIF and HI pair or the ES paired with CS or SNIP can be used to express different rankings since they are based on different databases and use different calculation methods. •We show that OA publication does not affect citations or scientometric indexes of rheumatology journals. •When choosing a rheumatology journal to publish OA, rheumatologists should consider individual OA citation patterns and APC charges together.

Open access journal publishing in the business disciplines: A closer look at the low uptake and discipline-specific considerations

The Internet has enabled efficient electronic publishing of scholarly journals and Open Access business models. Recent studies have shown that adoption of Open Access journals has been uneven across scholarly disciplines, where the business and economics disciplines in particular seem to lag behind all other fields of research. Through bibliometric analysis of journals indexed in Scopus, we find the share of articles in Open Access journals in business, management, and accounting to be only 6%. We further studied the Open Access availability of articles published during 2014–2019 in journals included in the Financial Times 50 journal list (19,969 articles in total). None of the journals are full Open Access, but 8% of the articles are individually open and for a further 35% earlier manuscript versions are available openly on the web. The results suggest that the low adoption rate of Open Access journals in the business fields is a side-effect of evaluation practices emphasizing publishing in journals included, in particular, ranking lists, creating disincentives for business model innovation, and barriers for new entrants among journals. Currently, most business school research has to be made Open Access through other ways than through full Open Access journals, and libraries play an important role in facilitating this in a sustainable way.

Open access to Construction IT research articles – developments over the past 25 years

The Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), was founded in 1996, using the new innovative open access business model enabled by the World wide web. A quarter century later Open Access (OA) journals have established themselves in all fields of science, in particular in biomedicine, so that around a fifth of all high quality peer reviewed articles are currently published in OA journals. In building and construction there are half a dozen active full OA journals, although ITcon remains the only one dedicated specifically to construction IT research. The development of OA has been slower than anticipated in the early years. An analysis using Michael Porter’s five forces model of the competitive environment of scholarly publishing helps to highlight the reasons for this. Particularly important as a barrier to change is the strong emphasis in academic evaluations on impact factors, which favors old established journals. Despite such hurdles OA continuously grows in importance and pioneering journals like ITcon have helped to pave the way.

Article processing charges for open access publication — the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada

Background . Open access (OA) publishing via article processing charges (APCs) is growing as an alternative to subscription publishing. The Pay It Forward (PIF) Project is exploring the feasibility of transitioning from paying subscriptions to funding APCs for faculty at research intensive universities. Estimating of the cost of APCs for the journals authors at research intensive universities tend to publish is essential for the PIF project and similar initiatives. This paper presents our research into this question. Methods . We identified APC prices for publications by authors at the 4 research intensive United States (US) and Canadian universities involved in the study. We also obtained APC payment records from several Western European universities and funding agencies. Both data sets were merged with Web of Science (WoS) metadata. We calculated the average APCs for articles and proceedings in 13 discipline categories published by researchers at research intensive universities. Wealso identified 41 journals published by traditionally subscription publishers which have recently converted to APC funded OA and recorded the APCs they charge. Results . We identified 7629 payment records from the 4 European APC payment databases and 14 356 OA articles authored by PIF partner university faculty for which we had listed APC prices. APCs for full OA journals published by PIF authors averaged 1775 USD; full OA journal APCs paid by Western European funders averaged 1865 USD; hybrid APCs paid by Western European funders averaged 2887 USD. The APC for converted journals published by major subscription publishers averaged 1825 USD. APC funded OA is concentrated in the life and basic sciences. APCs funded articles in the social sciences and humanities are often multidisciplinary and published in journals such as PLOS ONE that largely publish in the life sciences. Conclusions . Full OA journal APCs average a little under 2000 USD while hybrid articles average about 3000 USD for publications by researchers at research intensive universities. There is a lack of information on discipline differences in APCs due to the concentration of APC funded publications in a few fields and the multidisciplinary nature of research.

The open access movement at a crossroad: Are the big publishers and academic social media taking over?

Key points Traditionally, open access (OA) has been growing via two routes: full OA journals (gold) and open self‐archiving of manuscripts (green). Gold OA is dominated by new OA publishers (charging APCs) and society/university journals that do not. Major commercial and society publishers are increasingly moving into the APC‐funded OA market. The proliferation of big national or consortium‐level e‐licences bundling subscription and APCs for hybrid OA may lead to large‐scale flipping of journals to OA. Authors appear to be choosing social networks over repositories for ‘green’ OA sharing of articles.

OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS AND ACADEMICS' BEHAVIOR

The rising star of scholarly publishing is Open Access (OA). Even some traditional journals now offer this option on author payment, and many full freely accessible journals are now available to scholars, providing relief to research institutions increasingly unable to afford the escalating subscription rates of serials. However, proper recognition of full OA journals by the community remains a major obstacle to overcome if they are to become a viable alternative for scholarly communication. Through a survey, this work investigates economics scholars' attitudes to OA, and attempts to outline the state of practices and norms governing individuals' publication choices. (JEL L17, L86, O33)

Open Access Journals & Academicss Behaviour

The rising star of scholarly publishing is Open Access. Even some traditional journals now offer this option on author payment, and many full freely accessible journals are now available to scholars, providing relief to research institutions increasingly unable to afford the escalating subscription rates of serials. However, proper recognition of full Open Access journals by the community remains a major obstacle to overcome if they are to become a viable alternative for scholarly communication. Through a survey, this work investigates economics scholars’ attitudes to OA, and attempts to outline the state of practices and norms governing individuals’ publication choices.

Where on earth to publish? A sample survey comparing traditional and open access publishing in the oncological field.

BackgroundThe paper intends to help scientific authors to make the best choice of journals in which to publish, by describing and comparing journal features in the area of oncology. For this purpose, the authors identified impact factor (IF) ranking, cost options and copyright conditions offered to authors wishing to publish in full open access (OA), subscription-based or hybrid journals.MethodsData referring to articles published in 2010 by three Italian research institutions (National Institute of Health – Rome (ISS), Regina Elena National Cancer Institute – Rome (IRE), National Cancer Institute – Milan (INT) in journals (78) managed according to different business models, all listed in the Journal Citation Reports, subject category Oncology, were collected and analysed. The journals surveyed were ranked according to IF, position in quartiles, publication charges, usage rights in published articles, self-archiving conditions in OAI-compliant repositories digital archives.ResultsAlmost half (34) the journals surveyed were included in the first quartile, thus revealing authors’ preference for journals with a high IF. The prevalent journal business model was the hybrid formula (based on subscriptions but also offering a paid OA option) with 51 journals, followed by subscription-based only journals accounting for 22, while just 5 full OA journals were identified. In general, no relationship was found between IF and article publication charges, in terms of correspondence between more expensive fees and higher IF.ConclusionsThe issue of OA journals as compared with traditional subscription-based journals is highly debated among stakeholders: library administrators facing financial restrictions, authors seeking to locate the best outlet for their research, publishers wishing to increase their revenues by offering journals with wider appeal. Against this background, factors such as the quest for alternatives to high-cost business models, investments in setting up institutional repositories hosting the published versions of articles and efforts to overcome copyright barriers and gain free access to scientific literature are all crucial.

Freemium as a sustainable economic model for open access electronic publishing in humanities and social sciences1

Between the two paths of open access --green and gold --the later is the harder to develop and has the less support from the research community. The main difficulty is about finding a sound economic model. Open Access journals usually depend on two funding sources: subsidies and/or donations from institutions and publication fees from research units in the authors-pay model. These two ways of funding open access journals and books proved effective in some cases Plos, but are not flawless. The Center for Open Electronic Publishing, a French initiative for open access publishing in humanities and social sciences, has recently developed a new economic model based on “freemium” for its full open access journals and books series, in order to address two issues: improve their economical soundness and give them more visibility in libraries. Freemium, the contraction of “free” and “premium”, preserves open access to information together with the marketing of premium services.

Full Open Access Journals Have Increased Impact Factors

We are pleased to report the increase of the impact factors of MDPI journals during 2007 and 2008. In 2005 and part of 2006, the use of a two tier publication system, whereby we offered full Open Access publication to those authors willing to contribute financially to support this option, while providing the alternative choice of free publication without Open Access for those authors who preferred not to pay, resulted in the obviously decreased impact factors seen in 2006 [...]