Non-open Access Journals Research Articles

#OrthoTwitter: Relationship Between Author Twitter Utilization and Academic Impact in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Background #OrthoTwitter has evolved to disseminate findings and engage the public. However, the academic impact of Twitter utilization in orthopaedic surgery is unknown. Questions/purposes The purpose of the study was to evaluate relationships between the author and manuscript Twitter activity and citations. Methods Manuscripts in 17 orthopaedic journals from 2018 were identified. Citations, online mentions, impact factors, and subspecialties were obtained. H-index and Twitter account details for authors were obtained for a subset of manuscripts. Relationships between Twitter activity and citations were evaluated. Results 2,473/4,224 (58.5%) manuscripts were mentioned on Twitter (n=29,958 mentions), with Twitter manuscripts cited more frequently (median 10 vs. 7, p<0.0001). Twitter mentions, impact factors, non-open-access status, and subspecialties were associated with citation counts. Articles mentioned in 10, 100, and 1,000 Tweets were observed to have a 1.1-fold, 1.7-fold, and 245-fold increase in citations. In author-level analyses, 156 (20.0%) first and 216 (27.7%) senior authors had Twitter accounts. Citation count was associated with increasing senior author H-index (β est=0.13, p<0.05), Twitter mentions (β est=0.0043, p<0.0001), impact factors (β est=0.13, p<0.0001), and having a first (β est=0.20, p<0.05) or senior author (β est=0.17, p<0.05) on Twitter. Articles published in arthroplasty (β est=0.49, p<0.05), general interest (β est=0.55, p<0.01), sports (β est=0.63, p<0.01), and non-open access journals (β est=0.41, p<0.001) were cited more. H-index correlated with followers for first (rho=0.31, p<0.0001) and senior authors (rho=0.44, p<0.0001). Conclusion Author Twitter utilization is independently associated with manuscript citations. Authors should be aware of the potential association between social media utilization and traditional academic impact. Understanding the relationship between social media utilization and academic impact is necessary to effectively disseminate research.

Comparative Study of Open Access and Non-Open Access Journals in Subject Area Energy

Comparative Study of Open Access and Non-Open Access Journals in Subject Area Energy

Impact of Open Access on Journal Indices of Geology Journals

The aim of the present study is to analyze the open access status of geology journals and the impact of open access status on journal indices. This paper intends to measure journal indices for open access journals in geology, and compare them with the indices of non-open access journals in geology. The question of whether publishing in the open access mode is beneficial to authors is examined. The data was collected from Scopus Source List on 10thFebruary 2022. Geology journals were filtered from this. Open Access journals covered by Scopus are recognized as Open Access if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD). For each journal, we extracted different scientometric indicators and then compared these scientometric indicators with respect to the journals’ status as Open Access or Non-Open Access. Upon analyzing the difference between 50 OA and 184 non-OA journals with sufficient metric values in Scopus Source List, no significant differences were found between Geology OA and non-OA journals in the indices like citescore, citation count, scholarly output, percent cited, SNIP, SJR and percentile. Publishing in Open Access and non-Open Access journals in Geology will yield citations.

MP19-09 OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS HAVE HIGHER METRICS THAN NON-OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS: ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAN UROLOGY AND JOURNAL OF UROLOGY METRICS

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP19-09 OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS HAVE HIGHER METRICS THAN NON-OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS: ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAN UROLOGY AND JOURNAL OF UROLOGY METRICS Riccardo Lombardo, Antonio Cicione, Antonio Nacchia, Beatrice Turchi, Giacomo Gallo, Carmen Gravina, Alessandro Guercio, Jordi Stira, Lorenzo Maria Rovesti, Antonio Franco, Giorgio Guarnotta, Elisa Mancini, Olivia Alessandra Voglino, Valeria Baldassarri, Simone D'Annunzio, Sara Riolo, Andrea Tubaro, and Cosimo De Nunzio Riccardo LombardoRiccardo Lombardo More articles by this author , Antonio CicioneAntonio Cicione More articles by this author , Antonio NacchiaAntonio Nacchia More articles by this author , Beatrice TurchiBeatrice Turchi More articles by this author , Giacomo GalloGiacomo Gallo More articles by this author , Carmen GravinaCarmen Gravina More articles by this author , Alessandro GuercioAlessandro Guercio More articles by this author , Jordi StiraJordi Stira More articles by this author , Lorenzo Maria RovestiLorenzo Maria Rovesti More articles by this author , Antonio FrancoAntonio Franco More articles by this author , Giorgio GuarnottaGiorgio Guarnotta More articles by this author , Elisa ManciniElisa Mancini More articles by this author , Olivia Alessandra VoglinoOlivia Alessandra Voglino More articles by this author , Valeria BaldassarriValeria Baldassarri More articles by this author , Simone D'AnnunzioSimone D'Annunzio More articles by this author , Sara RioloSara Riolo More articles by this author , Andrea TubaroAndrea Tubaro More articles by this author , and Cosimo De NunzioCosimo De Nunzio More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002552.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In the past few years, several journals have become open access in order to increase the impact of their publication. Aim of our study is to assess the impact of open access articles versus non-open access articles in the European Urology journal and in the Journal of Urology. METHODS: All the original articles published in 2019 in European Urology and Journal of Urology were reviewed. Scopus database was used to evaluate citations, total views, captures, usage, mentions, tweets, share, likes, comments and field weighted citation impact. Metrics of open access articles were compared to non- open access articles. Mann Whitney test was used to evaluate statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Overall 386 articles were evaluated, 141 were published in European urology and 245 in the Journal of Urology. Overall 122 (33%) were open access. Open access articles presented a higher median citation index (14 vs 11, p<0,05), higher median total views (15 vs 12, p<0,05), higher captures (34 vs 27, p<0,05, higher median tweets (31 vs 17, p<0,05) when compared to non-open access journals. No differences in terms of mentions, citation index and shares were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggest that open access articles have higher metrics than non-open access articles. Authors should keep in mind our data when choosing publishing options. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e310 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Riccardo Lombardo More articles by this author Antonio Cicione More articles by this author Antonio Nacchia More articles by this author Beatrice Turchi More articles by this author Giacomo Gallo More articles by this author Carmen Gravina More articles by this author Alessandro Guercio More articles by this author Jordi Stira More articles by this author Lorenzo Maria Rovesti More articles by this author Antonio Franco More articles by this author Giorgio Guarnotta More articles by this author Elisa Mancini More articles by this author Olivia Alessandra Voglino More articles by this author Valeria Baldassarri More articles by this author Simone D'Annunzio More articles by this author Sara Riolo More articles by this author Andrea Tubaro More articles by this author Cosimo De Nunzio More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Librarian Authors Appear to Favour Open Access Journals, while Academic Authors Appear to Favour Non-Open Access Journals

A Review of: Chang, Y.-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library &amp; Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002 Abstract Objective – To compare the characteristics of authors publishing in open access and non-open access library and information science (LIS) journals. Design – Comparative analysis of published journal articles. Setting – Academic journals. Subjects – Articles published in selected LIS journals between 2008-2013. Methods – Journals included in the Library Science and Information Science category in the 2012 edition of Journal Citation Reports and those listed in the Library and Information Science category of the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 2013 were included in the analysis. Articles were examined and coded for author occupation, academic rank, and type of collaboration. Main Results – The author analyzed 1,807 articles from 20 open access journals and 1,665 articles from 13 non-open access journals. An unknown number of articles were excluded because they lacked required author information. Over half (53.9%) of the authors who published in the open access journals were practitioners. Over half (58.1%) of the authors who published in the non-open access journals were academics. Librarian-librarian collaboration was the most common type (38.6%) of collaboration found in the open access journals. Academic-academic collaboration was the most common type (34.1%) of collaboration found in the non-open access journals. Collaboration between librarians and academics was seen in 20.5% of open access articles and 13.2% of non-open access articles. Conclusion – In general, librarian-authored research was found more often in open access journals, while the “latest research topics and ideas” (p. 14) were found most often in non-open access journals.

Prevalência de anemia associada a parasitoses intestinais no território brasileiro: uma revisão sistemática

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the of anemia associated with intestinal parasitic infection, as well as to identify the most frequent parasites, the most affected age group and developmental factors. METHODS: This is a descriptive systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) model, including articles published between 2014 and 2018, in English and Portuguese languages, based on the databases of Google Scholar, PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and Virtual Health Library, using the combination of the descriptors prevalence of anemia associated with parasitic diseases, Brazil. Following the individual analysis by three reviewers, article reviews, experimental researches with animal, clinical case studies, non-open access journals, duplicate articles on such websites, studies relating anemia to other diseases describing the presence of either anemias or parasites were excluded from this study. RESULTS: A total of 1,697 articles were found in the databases which 10 were selected and showed an average association of anemia and intestinal parasites of 11.4% in the South, 13.1% in the Northeast, and 3.5% in the Midwest Region. In the Northern Region, no statistical association was performed. The most frequent parasites were Entamoeba coli, Giardia lamblia, and Endolimax nana. Most studies involving children and teenagers up to 14 years old. CONCLUSION: The findings of the current study showed that the of parasite associated with anemia in Brazil is important when there is a higher frequency of pathogenic parasites in the population studied, reinforcing the need for extensive studies.

LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals

A Review of:&#x0D; Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library &amp; Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002&#x0D; &#x0D; Abstract &#x0D; Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals.&#x0D; Design – Content analysis.&#x0D; Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases.&#x0D; Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles.&#x0D; Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals.&#x0D; The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles.&#x0D; Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues.&#x0D; This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period. &#x0D; Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%).&#x0D; Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

Should copyright be transferred before a manuscript is accepted?

Academic journals that undergo a process of academic scrutiny often pass a stage of peer review and subsequent editorial approval. In a process that can take weeks or months (in some cases, even years), an author aims to satisfy the requirements of peer reviewer and editorial scrutiny that would merit publication of their work. It is customary to, in traditional, non-open access journals, to then sign over copyright to the publisher, upon which the publisher then issues a proof, and the manuscript is then published. Even though it is obvious that an author would not submit to a journal with the objective of having it rejected, the issue of the timing of copyright transfer is one which does not appear to have been discussed in the literature, possibly because the order of transfer, i.e., after acceptance of a paper for publication, seems naturally logical. With the modernization of online submission systems, the transfer of copyright tends to occur online, after acceptance. However, on occasion, some journals request the transfer of copyright before peer review and editorial processing occurs, i.e., upon the act of submission. This letter examines three cases of Springer Nature plant science journals that demand the transfer of copyright to the journal's society upon submission, in direct violation of their instructions for authors. Authors have no right to challenge this discrepancy, nor can they complete submission in accordance with the instructions for authors because they are forced to submit copyright upon submission. Not only does transfer of copyright at such an early stage of the publishing process constitute a waste of authors' time-a precious commodity in a cut-throat field of science-in the three cases indicated in this paper, they may constitute a violation of authors' rights. The ethics of this request by the journals and publisher need to be debated.

Faculty Publications from a Research University: The Scholarly Impact of Open Access versus Non-Open Access

ABSTRACTWe used the faculty publications published in fully open access and non-open access journals that are indexed in the Web of Science core collections to study the extent our researchers are publishing in these fully open access journals and to identify the relative impact of their open access (OA) versus non-OA publications, to identify their h-indexes, and to explore the citation advantages. Overall, the average citation is higher for non-OA papers. When the data were examined by year of publication, citations were higher for non-OA papers six of the eleven years under study. The other years show no citation advantage. On examination of the science and technology material in the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases, the field of physics had a citation advantage for non-OA articles for all the years under study, and in entomology, except for one year, non-OA also had a citation advantage. For biological sciences, in Web of science, five of the eleven years OA citations were higher, and in Google Scholar for all years OA had a citation advantage. For papers published in 2014 and 2015, there was no citation advantage for the majority of articles in both groups.

Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science

•Differences in author characteristics are confirmed between OA and non-OA journals in LIS•Librarian authors dominate OA journal authorship•OA journals have a higher proportion of academic authors than do non-OA journals•Librarian–librarian collaboration dominates in OA coauthored articles, but this trend is decreasing•Academic–academic collaboration dominates in non-OA coauthored articles, and this trend is increasing

Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016

This study aimed to characterize the current status of a variety of digital standards in medical journals published in Korea in 2016. A total of 256 journals listed as member journals of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors were searched to evaluate the following items: an independent journal homepage domain; an e-submission system; the use of digital object identifiers (DOIs), CrossMark, and FundRef; the availability of text and data mining; the presence of Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) information, an open access declaration, and the language of the journal. The search was carried out from July 29 to 30, 2016. Independent journal homepage domains were found for 190 of the 256 journals (74.1%). Of the journals, 216 were equipped with an e-submission system (84.4%), and 218 journals used DOIs (85.2%). CrossMark and FundRef were used in 105 journals (41.0%), text and data mining were available for 31 journals (11.1%), ORCID identifiers were present in 24 journals (9.4%), and an open access declaration according to a Creative Commons license was present for 199 journals (77.8%). The number of English-language journals was 130 (50.8%). Open access journals and English-language journals were found to have implemented more digital standards than non-open access journals and Korean-language journals respectively. The above results demonstrate that digital standards have been rapidly implemented by a considerable number of medical journals in Korea. In order to facilitate the more active promotion of journals to the international level, more journals should utilize these standards. The use of full-text JATS (journal article tag suite) XML is recommended for the easy adoption of DOIs, CrossMark, FundRef, and ORCID.

Bibliometric observation of publication output of university teachers: A study with special reference to physics

Context: Bibliometrics are now considered as an established practice to assess the academic output of research. Publication productivity is expressed by the number of papers published by a selected unit in a given time. In Kerala, although higher education and research have much wider importance and the publication productivity is also increasing, no systematic attempt has been made to analyze the pattern of this literature productivity. In this context, it is relevant to examine the productivity patterns of the faculty members of the universities. Materials and Methods: This study is based on the data collected from the publications of teachers pertaining to physics department of the three universities of Kerala that is, University of Kerala, Mahatma Gandhi University and University of Calicut collected from annual reports and the university websites. Analysis is based onbibliometric techniques: To find out authorship pattern, degree of collaboration (DC), fitness of Lotka's law, year-wise and designation-wise distributions. Results: It is found that the DC among the teachers is high among the physics faculties of Universities. Lotka's law seems to be satisfactory in UoC only. Nonopen access journals are preferred by the physics teachers, but seem a slight shift in the use of open access journals is also there. Designation-wise distribution shows that professors are the major contributors to the physics literature. Conclusion: It can be concluded that universities can attain visibility, prestige, and credibility in the broader academic community by producing high-quality research and this in turn enhance the reputation of the universities and provide a greater opportunity for attracting better students and faculty.

The last bite was deadly – About responsibility in scientific publishing

Some open access journals are believed to have devaluated the highly respected image of the scientific journal. This has been, it is claimed, verified. Yet the project we believe failed and we show why we think that it failed. The study itself was badly conducted and the report, which Science published, was itself a perfect example of "bad science". If the article that was published in Science were to be taken as one of the "test" articles and Science as a victim journal (a perfect control though), the study would show the opposite of what author concluded in his paper: 100% of the controls (normal non-open access journals, in the present study this was Science) accepted the "bait" paper for publication, while in the experimental group only about 60% (open access journals) accepted the bait paper for publication. The conclusion is that, with respect to non-open access and open access, the probability of accepting pseudoscience is well in favor of this being done by a non-open access journal. Since this interpretation is based on some facts that were not included in the project itself, the only warranted result of this study would be that nothing could be concluded from it. It is concluded that the method that Bohannon used was heavily flawed and in addition immoral; that the report that was published by Science was inconclusive and that the act of publishing such report cannot be morally justified either. Various methods to improve the quality of published papers exist but scientific fraud with "good intentions" as a method to promote scientific publishing should be avoided.

Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures

There are many indicators of journal quality and prestige. Although acceptance rates are discussed anecdotally, there has been little systematic exploration of the relationship between acceptance rates and other journal measures. This study examines the variability of acceptance rates for a set of 5094 journals in five disciplines and the relationship between acceptance rates and JCR measures for 1301 journals. The results show statistically significant differences in acceptance rates by discipline, country affiliation of the editor, and number of reviewers per article. Negative correlations are found between acceptance rates and citation-based indicators. Positive correlations are found with journal age. These relationships are most pronounced in the most selective journals and vary by discipline. Open access journals were found to have statistically significantly higher acceptance rates than non-open access journals. Implications in light of changes in the scholarly communication system are discussed.