Gold Open Access Research Articles

Paradoxical growth of publications by authors from developing countries in gold open access journals: a commentary on Dr. Cernat’s, 2024 article

Paradoxical growth of publications by authors from developing countries in gold open access journals: a commentary on Dr. Cernat’s, 2024 article

The costs of open access publication

This article explores the financial dynamics of open access (OA) publication in Catalan universities by combining four data sources: publication data coupled with article processing charge (APC) estimates; information on journal subscriptions, transformative agreements and APC payments made by universities; acknowledgements of APC funding sources in OA scholarly outputs; and a survey of authors. The findings reveal a consistent increase in OA publication across Catalan universities, with 60% of the articles indexed in the Web of Science being published in either gold or hybrid OA in 2022. In parallel, investment in the research publishing system shows an upward trend. Resources allocated to journal subscription licenses have been redirected towards transformative agreements, leading to a rise in hybrid OA publications. Additional budget allocations have been made to accommodate APCs for gold OA journals. Authors employ varied funding sources for gold and hybrid OA, with university funding programmes and research grants commonly facilitating gold OA, while transformative agreements often support hybrid OA. Authors associated with Catalan universities frequently benefit from funding schemes and transformative agreements that are accessible to their coauthors. However, survey responses underscore the multifaceted nature of researchers’ financial support, including personal assets and waivers. Authors express frustration with the evolving OA landscape, particularly concerning the exorbitant publication fees. Nevertheless, the allure of high-impact journals and expedited peer review processes continues to incentivize authors towards gold OA. Researchers voice concerns regarding the lack of equitable funding programmes and potential conflicts of interest within gold OA models, which signals the risk of compromising peer review integrity to prioritize profits. This study underscores the need for further research to deepen our understanding of scholarly publishing expenditure and inform strategies for fostering a sustainable, equitable OA ecosystem.

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.

An empirical investigation of open access scholarly publishing trends in social sciences at high-ranked central universities of India

Purpose This study aims to analyze the adoption of open access (OA) publishing in social sciences within central universities in India, focusing on various aspects such as the growth of OA literature, the use of different OA routes and collaboration patterns in OA publications. Design/methodology/approach Ten central universities were selected based on their rankings in the National Institute Ranking Framework 2022. Data on OA publishing in social sciences were collected from the Social Science Citation Index of the Web of Science (WoS) database using the advanced search query “(CU=India OR AD=India) AND PY=(2003–2022) NOT PY=(2023).” Data analysis was conducted using MS Excel (v16.0), BibExcel (version 2017), Biblioshiny (version 4.1.2) and Google Open Refine (version 3.7). Findings The study found that 30.40% of total publications were OA, with BHU as leading institute in OA publishing. OA publishing in social sciences saw a consistent increase, peaking in 2022 with 209 publications. “Sustainability” and “Plos One” were among the top ten journals, with 103 and 34 OA papers, respectively. OA publications had a higher mean citation rate than closed access publications. Collaboration with seven and nine authors had higher mean citation rates, while six-author collaborations were lower. Indian researchers received the most citations collaborating with the USA, UK and Australia. The Netherlands and Saudi Arabia received the fewer citations, when collaborating with Indian authors. Research limitations/implications The study’s main limitation is its reliance on WoS data, excluding many OA publications from smaller or specialized journals. Additionally, the focus on high-ranked central universities may not represent the entire academic landscape, as OA publishing patterns vary across other institutions and disciplines. Practical implications The study’s findings suggest that advancing OA publishing in social sciences at Indian universities requires raising awareness of OA concepts, enhancing institutional support and policies and informing researchers about funding opportunities. Emphasizing Gold OA and funding publication fees can broaden access to research. Universities with low OA ratios should adopt similar policies, mandate public research deposits and develop technical infrastructure. Encouraging multi-author collaborations can boost research impact and citation rates. Insights from the study can help institutions and policymakers shape effective OA strategies, enhancing the visibility and impact of social science research. Originality/value This is the first study analyzing the adoption of OA in the field of social sciences in high-ranked central universities in India. It has implications for promoting OA and increasing accessibility to research outputs. Universities with higher OA ratios can lead in this regard and encourage others to adopt similar practices for overall OA growth.

Open access in Ukraine: Characteristics and evolution from 2012 to 2021

Abstract This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to publications produced by authors affiliated with Ukrainian universities and research organizations in the period 2012–2021. To get a comprehensive overview we assembled data from three databases: Dimensions, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus. Our final data set consisted of 186,000 unique records. To determine the OA status of each article, this study utilized Unpaywall data, which was obtained via API. It was determined that 71.5% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Notably, 60.9% of the OA papers were disseminated through national journals. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the rate of OA papers was highest in the Humanities, at 89.7%, with 74.8% of papers disseminated through national communication channels. The share of OA papers published in national journals surpassed OA papers in foreign journals across all research areas except Natural Sciences. Another noteworthy finding was that Gold OA emerged as the predominant type of OA over the 10-year period of analysis. We underscore the critical importance of ensuring the FAIRness of national scholarly communication infrastructure for monitoring OA uptake and state support of national publishers.

Navigating the Cardiothoracic Publication Landscape: A Primer for Journal Selection.

Journal selection is very important for any researcher in every field. Publication in a reputable journal not only has a higher reach among a greater number of people but also sets a benchmark for significance and quality. This primer aims to guide researchers in the field of cardiothoracic research, including medicine, surgery, and imaging, to assist in journal selection for their respective articles. Journal selection depends on a variety of factors, such as impact factors, publication charges, review processes, article types that a journal accepts, and indexing. This primer highlights all these factors in detail that are essential for the selection of a suitable journal. The article emphasizes the importance of these factors in making a reasoned decision about journal selection. This article also focuses on different types of publication models and their implications, including hybrid open access, gold open access, and diamond open access. In conclusion, this primer aims to provide insights to researchers in the fields of cardiothoracic surgery, medicine, and imaging about the publication landscapes and guide them to strategically plan their submissions.

The Conceptual ‘APC Ring’: Is There a Risk of APC-Driven Guest Authorship, and Is a Change in the Culture of the APC Needed?

While guest or honourary authorship in academic papers is a broadly and widely discussed phenomenon in biomedical research, the issue of the use—or abuse—of article-processing charges (APCs) as a form of potential authorship exchange currency, that is, the ‘APC ring,’ is neither being considered nor discussed. The APC is central to the open-access (OA) movement, specifically the gold OA model. It is conceivable that, in a hyper-competitive academic publishing environment where the number of gold OA journals is growing, a segment of poorly funded researchers aiming to publish in ranked OA journals with out-of-reach APCs might turn to richer or well-funded researchers to cover the APC bill in exchange for authorship. Despite this, no published cases directly documenting APC-for-authorship schemes as a form of guest authorship appear to exist, which seems inconceivable. One possible explanation is that if such unethical behaviour were to be detected by APC-charging OA journals, it might not be reported as such. In this situation, APC-dependent OA journals would be conflicted between receiving a financial lifeline, the APC, and exposing authors that have abused the APC in their journals in exchange for authorship. How would publishers dependent on the APC-based OA model justify receiving APCs derived from an APC ring? Although this form of guest authorship is currently hypothetical, it seems highly likely, so this issue needs greater debate, and if actual case studies exist, these need to be openly and publicly debated to better appreciate how this phenomenon is taking place.

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades

BackgroundSystematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as “systematic reviews”) and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane’s existence and characterize changes throughout the period.MethodsThis observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%.ResultsWe identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013–2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013–2022 and 2003–2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals.ConclusionsPublication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and Open Science in Psychology: An Overview for Researchers

Scholarly communication, Open Access (OA), and open science practices in Psychology are rapidly evolving. However, most published works that focus on scholarly communication issues do not target the specific discipline, and instead take a more “one size fits all” approach. When it comes to scholarly communication, research practices and traditions vary greatly across and within disciplines. This monograph presents a current overview that aims to cover Open Access (OA) and some of the newer open science-related issues that are affecting Psychology. Issues covered include topics around OA of all types, as well as other important scholarly communication-related issues such as the emergence of preprint options, the evolution of new peer review models, citation metrics, persistent identifiers, coauthorship conventions, field-specific OA megajournals, and other “gold” OA psychology journal options, the challenges of interdisciplinarity, and how authors are availing themselves of green and gold OA strategies or using scholarly networking sites such as ResearchGate. Included are discussions of open science strategies in Psychology such as reproducibility, replication, and research data management. This overview will allow psychology researchers to get up to speed on these expansive topics. Further study into researcher behavior in terms of scholarly communication in Psychology would create more understanding of existing culture as well as provide researchers with a more effective roadmap to the current landscape. As no other single work is known to provide a current look at scholarly communication topics that is specifically focused on Psychology, this targeted overview aims to partially fill that niche.

A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels

Abstract Purpose Recently, global science has shown an increasing open trend, however, the characteristics of research integrity of open access (OA) publications have rarely been studied. The aim of this study is to compare the characteristics of retracted articles across different OA levels and discover whether OA level influences the characteristics of retracted articles. Design/methodology/approach The research conducted an analysis of 6,005 retracted publications between 2001 and 2020 from the Web of Science and Retraction Watch databases. These publications were categorized based on their OA levels, including Gold OA, Green OA, and non-OA. The study explored retraction rates, time lags and reasons within these categories. Findings The findings of this research revealed distinct patterns in retraction rates among different OA levels. Publications with Gold OA demonstrated the highest retraction rate, followed by Green OA and non-OA. A comparison of retraction reasons between Gold OA and non-OA categories indicated similar proportions, while Green OA exhibited a higher proportion due to falsification and manipulation issues, along with a lower occurrence of plagiarism and authorship issues. The retraction time lag was shortest for Gold OA, followed by non-OA, and longest for Green OA. The prolonged retraction time for Green OA could be attributed to an atypical distribution of retraction reasons. Research limitations There is no exploration of a wider range of OA levels, such as Hybrid OA and Bronze OA. Practical implications The outcomes of this study suggest the need for increased attention to research integrity within the OA publications. The occurrences of falsification, manipulation, and ethical concerns within Green OA publications warrant attention from the scientific community. Originality/value This study contributes to the understanding of research integrity in the realm of OA publications, shedding light on retraction patterns and reasons across different OA levels.

Amend: an integrated platform of retracted papers and concerned papers

Abstract Purpose The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders. Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity, including concerns voiced on social media, disclosed lists of paper mills, and retraction notices accessible through journal websites. However, despite the availability of such resources, there remains a lack of a unified platform to consolidate this information, thereby hindering efficient searching and cross-referencing. Thus, it is imperative to develop a comprehensive platform for retracted papers and related concerns. This article aims to introduce “Amend,” a platform designed to integrate information on research integrity from diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach The Amend platform consolidates concerns and lists of problematic articles sourced from social media platforms (e.g., PubPeer, For Better Science), retraction notices from journal websites, and citation databases (e.g., Web of Science, CrossRef). Moreover, Amend includes investigation and punishment announcements released by administrative agencies (e.g., NSFC, MOE, MOST, CAS). Each related paper is marked and can be traced back to its information source via a provided link. Furthermore, the Amend database incorporates various attributes of retracted articles, including citation topics, funding details, open access status, and more. The reasons for retraction are identified and classified as either academic misconduct or honest errors, with detailed subcategories provided for further clarity. Findings Within the Amend platform, a total of 32,515 retracted papers indexed in SCI, SSCI, and ESCI between 1980 and 2023 were identified. Of these, 26,620 (81.87%) were associated with academic misconduct. The retraction rate stands at 6.64 per 10,000 articles. Notably, the retraction rate for non-gold open access articles significantly differs from that for gold open access articles, with this disparity progressively widening over the years. Furthermore, the reasons for retractions have shifted from traditional individual behaviors like falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and duplication to more organized large-scale fraudulent practices, including Paper Mills, Fake Peer-review, and Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC). Research limitations The Amend platform may not fully capture all retracted and concerning papers, thereby impacting its comprehensiveness. Additionally, inaccuracies in retraction notices may lead to errors in tagged reasons. Practical implications Amend provides an integrated platform for stakeholders to enhance monitoring, analysis, and research on academic misconduct issues. Ultimately, the Amend database can contribute to upholding scientific integrity. Originality/value This study introduces a globally integrated platform for retracted and concerning papers, along with a preliminary analysis of the evolutionary trends in retracted papers.

Diamond is a scientist’s best friend

The field of applied linguistics is increasingly adopting open science practices. As open access publication gains traction, ethical issues emerge that need to be addressed by the field. This viewpoint paper addresses the concern that open science is not equally open for everyone. This paper describes how open access publication is increasingly being commercialized and explains how open access publication coincides with systemic inequality. We offer the following viewpoints for the field to consider: We are morally obligated to make our research output accessible. Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publishing lead to systemic inequality in open access publishing, benefiting commercial publishers and those working in research-intensive universities and rich countries. Diamond open access publication removes the systemic inequalities; hence, Diamond open access should be prioritized over Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publication models. We should move away from publish-and-read agreements and Green open access publishing, because they prevent system change. Through our choices in our work as researchers, editors, reviewers, authors and teachers, we can contribute to the transition towards truly equitable open access publishing practices. Senior researchers are in the position and have the moral obligation to be drivers of these changes.

Are open access fees a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Abstract Butler et al. (2023) reported that five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley) received $1.06 billion in publication fees between 2015 and 2018. Another three publishers were mentioned (Frontiers, MDPI and PLOS), but were not analyzed. The revenue was underestimated and the number of open access (OA) articles increased over the period of study. The five publishers analyzed charged (on average) $1,989 for gold OA articles and $2,905 for hybrid articles. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00305

Commentary] To Publish Scientific Journals: For Some, the Big Business of the Century

This brief commentary addresses the escalating issues within the scientific publishing industry. The author highlights the proliferation of predatory journals and the adoption of similar profit-driven models by established publishers. He points out the ethical dilemma posed by Gold Open Access (OA) journals, which charge significant Article Publishing Charges (APC) to authors while not compensating peer reviewers. The commentary underscores the resulting strain on the peer-review process, with a decline in the availability and quality of reviewers. The author observes a shift from the traditional reciprocal peer-review system to one burdened by challenges, including shortened review deadlines, reliance on less experienced reviewers, and instances of manuscripts being unreviewed. He advocates for compensating reviewers if authors are charged for publication, warning that the current system risks the integrity of peer-reviewed research. Finally, the commentary applauds initiatives like the resignation of editorial board members from Elsevier journals to start non-profit journals, urging scientific communities to regain control of scholarly publishing.

Zooming in on Open Access in Ukraine

In October 2022, Ukraine declared its commitment to enhancing the effectiveness, quality and responsiveness of its research by implementing the National Plan for Open Science (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2022). This document represents a significant step forward in aligning Ukraine's national legislation with European Union requirements and promoting the adoption of open science practices. Open access (OA) is a crucial component of open science, and it is imperative to gain insight into its growth to inform funding policies and plan infrastructure development accordingly.The aim of this research is to obtain a comprehensive overview of the OA development in Ukraine. To achieve this goal, publications affiliated with Ukrainian research institutions and universities in the period from 2012 to 2021 were collected from three well-known databases: Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus. Records were gathered in November 2022 using the web interfaces of WoS and Scopus, while data from Dimensions was extracted via the Dimensions API. After excluding duplicates and publications without DOIs, the OA status of each publication was determined using the Unpaywall API. The study revealed that between 2012 and 2021, authors affiliated with Ukrainian research institutions and universities published 201,670 research papers. Of these publications, 66.7% were open access, while the remaining 33.3% were behind a paywall. The percentage of OA articles for the indicated 10-year period increased substantially from 33.8% in 2012 to 79.9% in 2021.Gold open access was the most common OA subtype, with 68.4% of articles published in OA journals. The second most frequent choice was bronze open access, accounting for 15.3% of articles. Green subtype and hybrid were less commonly used, with 8.5% and 7.8% of articles published in these categories, respectively.Regarding the distribution of open access across different academic disciplines, the highest percentage of OA publications was found in the social sciences, with a rate of 88.1%, followed closely by the humanities at 87.8%, and medical and health sciences at 73.4%. Agriculture sciences, multidisciplinary studies, and natural sciences also exhibited relatively high levels of OA publications, representing 71.7%, 63.4%, and 55.7%, respectively. The lowest proportion of OA publications was observed in the engineering and technology category, with a rate of 47.7%.This empirical study indicates that the share of OA publications in Ukraine is significantly higher than the global average of 31% reported by Piwowar, Priem, and Orr in 2019 and their estimation of 44% by 2025 (Piwowar et al., 2019). Notably, Ukraine is approaching the indicators of European "openness" leaders, such as Great Britain, Sweden, Austria, and the Netherlands (Robinson-Garcia et al., 2020). It is worth mentioning that northern and central European countries have been early adopters of open access policies (Maddi et al., 2021), while Ukraine lacks mandates for research dissemination through OA, transformative agreements and only a few institutions have registered their OA policy with ROARMAP. The high share of OA publications in Ukraine can be partially attributed to the longstanding tradition of national journals being open access and fully subsidized by hosting research institutions. Therefore, open access has always been a part of the research dissemination culture in Ukraine (Novikov, 2020).

The state of green open access in Canadian universities

This study investigates the use of institutional repositories for self-archiving peer-reviewed work in the U15 (an association of fifteen Canadian research-intensive universities). It relates usage with university open access (OA) policy types and publisher policy embargoes. We show that of all articles found in OpenAlex attributed to U15 researchers, 45.1 to 56.6% are available as Gold or Green OA, yet only 0.5 to 10.7% (mean 4.2%) of these can be found on their respective U15 IRs. Our investigation shows a lack of OA policies from most institutions, journal policies with embargoes exceeding 12 months, and incomplete policy information.

The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges

Abstract We aim to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall, and annual APC prices from open data sets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, and $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million), and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of their APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.

Recent Activities for Relaunch Process of Electrochemistry to Gold Open Access Journal and Introduction of Award Winners in 2023

Recent Activities for Relaunch Process of Electrochemistry to Gold Open Access Journal and Introduction of Award Winners in 2023

Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders

With this Forum contribution I wish to shed light on the problematic developments in scientific publishing resulting from the strong push of science funders towards gold open access (OA). This has given rise to numerous “predatory” journals, that maximise profit at the expense of scientific quality. With a bibliometric analysis in the field of ecology I demonstrate that over the period 2014–2022 the publication numbers in “predatory” OA journals have grown exponentially (+44% annually), while in all other journal types, article numbers were stagnating or even decreasing since a few years. Then I highlight how different OA publication models from society-owned journals to publisher-owned “predatory” journals, differ in the prices authors pay and how the income is split between effective costs, pure profit and money transferred back to science. To help with the recognition of the different journal types, I provide a list journals in the fields of ecology and organismal botany that are owned by academic societies, as well as a list of criteria to recognize “predatory” journals. Authors, reviewers and editors should consider carefully where they submit papers or provide volunteer service. My suggestion is to prioritize society-owned journals, while avoiding cooperation with “predatory” journals. Science funders and libraries have played a major role in the negative developments reviewed in this paper, but at the same time they have the capacity to change the course, mainly by two steps: In the short term they should link the payment of article processing charges (APCs) to strict quality criteria, while in the medium term, they should overcome the gold OA system towards a diamond OA system that would avoid the inflation of low-quality publications and remove barriers not only from readers, but also from authors, while at the same time likely reducing the overall costs. Abbreviations: APC = article processing charge; AVS = Applied Vegetation Science; IAVS = International Association for Vegetation Science; COVID-19 = Coronavirus disease 2019; DOAJ = Directory of Open Access Journals; JIF = 2-year Journal Impact Factor of the Web of Science; JVS = Journal of Vegetation Science; OA = open access; VCS = Vegetation Classification and Survey; WoS = Web of Science Core Collection.

Trends in reader access and article processing charges among urology journals: A systematic review

ABSTRACT Introduction: This bibliometric study is designed to investigate the relations of urology journals with access types and article processing charges (APCs) to assess the changing paradigm in urology publishing. Methods: The three major databases: The Master Journal List directory by Clavirate Analytics, Scopus® and PubMed were queried for relevant journals in urology and subspecialties. Characterization of urology journals was undertaken, and citation metrics and APCs were compared across access types. A partial sampling was used to investigate the number of open access (OA) articles according to access types and correlations with both APCs and CiteScore. Results: Seventy-seven journals were included into the study. Gold and diamond OA journals comprised 35.4% of urology journals in 2009 and were increased to 49.3% in 2022. No significant difference was found for change in the CiteScore of 2017 and 2021 between the access types, F (2,63) = 0.152, P = 0.859, η2 = 0.005. A moderate positive correlation was found between APCs and CiteScore for both hybrid (rs [27] =0.431, P < 0.0005) and gold OA (rs [27] =0.489, P = 0.007) journals. The authors need to pay $1175 more to publish their articles in OA model in hybrid journals. The number of articles published in OA model by hybrid journals were not correlated with APCs (rs = 0.332, P = 0.078) but correlated with CiteScore (rs = 0.393, P = 0.035). Conclusions: A paradigm shift in urology publishing toward OA model has been occurring. Authors choose prestige, OA model, rapid publication, and less rigorous peer-review to publish their articles. APCs bear only moderate correlation with the citation metrics of the urology journals.