Subscription-based Journals Research Articles

Comparative Analysis of Impact, Collaboration, and Prestige of Open Access and Subscription Based LIS Journals Using SJR and Scopus Indicators

The study examines whether there exist any similarities in impact, author collaboration, and prestige between Open Access (OA) and Subscription based (SB) Library and Information Science (LIS) journals. The study selected highly appearing 32 core LIS journals in all four quartiles of SCImago database during 2018–2022. The Scopus database was utilized to extract CiteScore, SNIP, Total Articles, Citations, and publications data from 2018 to 2022, while h5-index was calculated manually and SJR scores were extracted from SCImago. Statistical tests (Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test) were conducted in R software, guided by normality and variance checks. The study reveals that SB LIS journals outperformed OA LIS journals in terms of impact and prestige based on several statistical tests on CiteScore and h5-index data. However, there was no significant difference in SNIP indicator for both datasets. On the contrary, the study revealed similarities in the degree of author collaboration in both datasets, with no significant difference. Besides, the study also determines SB LIS journals have a significant advantage in articles published per year and citations garnered per year during the study period. The insights of this study would help LIS researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers to consider OA publishing as an alternate medium for scholarly communication. It is vital for OA LIS journal stakeholders to consistently improve productivity, quality, and the peer review process, to slowly diminish the gap between OA and SB journals in terms of impact and prestige.

Methodological quality of clinical research in endodontics: A cross-sectional comparison between open access and traditional subscription-based journals

Abstract Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing provides the benefits of increased visibility, accessibility, and impact of research findings. Despite the rapidly growing number of OA journals in dentistry, there are rising concerns about their quality. Our aim is to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical endodontic studies published in OA journals and to compare them to traditional subscription (TS) journals from January 2010 to December 2022. Materials and Methods: Clinical endodontic studies published in four journals, two from OA and two from TS categories were included in this review. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized trials and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies instrument for nonrandomized studies. Data were analyzed with SPSS, utilizing independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for statistical comparisons. Results: A total of 80 articles were included, 40 from each OA and TS journals. The majority of research articles originated from Asia (48.7%) and were primarily focused on endodontic outcomes (47.5%). A significant difference in methodological quality was noted between TS and OA journals (t-test, P = 0.022). TS journals exhibited a higher mean methodological quality score of 1.64 (±0.30) compared to 1.49 (±0.27) of OA journals. Variance in methodological quality scores among journals was also statistically significant (ANOVA, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Clinical studies published in TS journals had higher methodological quality compared to those published in OA journals. Enhancements in peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in OA publications in endodontics.

Twenty years of the Open Access movement: A retrospective study on the relationship between publishing strategies and scientific capital of Brazilian researchers in biological science

Abstract In this study, we aim to investigate the publishing strategies adopted by the Brazilian scientific community and how they are related to the researchers’ scientific capital. The “research productivity” grant (PQ grant) is taken as an indicator of scientific capital: The greater the PQ grant a researcher receives, the greater is their scientific capital. Personal data from 6,993 researchers linked to at least one Brazilian graduate program in biological sciences were obtained through the Sucupira Platform, data on articles published from 2000 to 2019 were retrieved from the Lattes Platform, and the Directory of Open Access Journals was consulted to classify articles as Open Access (OA). Our main findings indicate that subscription-based journals are the most prevalent publishing strategy, but the proportion of OA publications is increasing over time, mainly with article processing charges (APC). We also observed that the lower the level of PQ grant, the higher the share of articles in OA journals. Finally, we observed a growing trend in the percentage of researchers with high and mid-high adherence to OA from all levels of PQ grant, but mainly with APC. Mapping the dynamics of publishing strategies can play an important step towards driving policies oriented to the promotion of OA.

Who Publishes Open Access?

ABSTRACTOpen access (OA) publishing makes scholarship more accessible to readers but also presents additional hurdles for authors. This article examines determinants of OA publishing in well-respected, subscription-based journals. We find that research funding provides the strongest explanation for OA publishing, although various aspects of authorship and an author’s affiliation with a European versus a US institution also matter. We discuss the implications of our findings for publishing in scholarly journals in political science.

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.

“... is an open access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal”: How open-access journals describe themselves in their “Aims and Scope” statements

Open access journals (OAJs) have been celebrated for freeing research from paywalls and increasing the visibility of research results beyond disciplinary, academic, or financial boundaries. They have been recognized as an important part of the Open Science (OS) ecology. However, they are still viewed by some with skepticism. Given these conflicting perceptions, it would be important for LSP researchers and practitioners to understand OAJs better as they may need to work with students who are or will be part of the OS movement. Examining how open access journals describe themselves in their “Aims and Scope” (A&amp;S) statement is a worthwhile step in this direction. I analyzed the A&amp;S statements of 104 OAJs and 104 subscription-based journals. I conducted thematic analysis aided by NVivo. Although both groups of journals include some broad themes in their A&amp;S statements, there are some observable differences in the way they describe their scope and promote themselves. Using the concept of the prestige economy, I offer two theoretical insights: the OAJs journals may be selfconsciously and purposefully responding to the expectations of the prestige economy. Meanwhile, they may be redefining what is relevant in such an economy.

Business and publication model of surgical journals: a bibliometric analysis

Background: The research community is increasingly recognizing the significance of understanding journal business models and their influence on the dissemination and readership of scholarly literature. This has sparked discussions on publisher payment models, exemplified by the recent termination of the subscription contract between the University of California and Elsevier. Methods: Scopus was used as the primary database to extract the list of surgery journals and other variables related to journal metrics. SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) was used to extract information about the journals such as name and type of publisher, language and location model of the journal and publication model. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results: More than half of surgical journals were published by university publishers (54.2%). Similarly more than half of the journals are of European origin (53%). About 1/3 of the surgical journals employ open access publication model. We obserevd a greater number of orthopedic subspeciality journals (19%). SJR was higher for university and commercial type of publishers. Conclusion: A small number of multinational commercial corporations dominate the publication of surgery journals, leading to significant centralization. Despite the majority of surgery journals being open access, their impact is similar to that of subscription-based journals.

Open-Access Publishing in Tourism and Hospitality Research

This paper examines various models of academic publishing and considers their relative advantages for authors, readers, academic institutions and society. Relevant factors in driving authors’ choice of journal include the journal’s scope, reputation and publishing model used. Authors’ choices are shaped by the expectations of academic institutions and strongly determine both access to readers and the benefits to society. From an analysis of 174 journals in the tourism and hospitality field, four publication models are identified and compared: ‘subscription-only’ and the ‘Green’, ‘Gold’ and ‘Platinum’ open-access models. The findings of a survey of 42 editors of journals in the field are then presented. These suggest that subscription-based journals (be they subscription-only or hybrid) tend to be owned by commercial publishing companies and have the highest reputation, as measured by their position in one or more indexing systems. They also tend to have significantly larger numbers of paper submissions than open-access journals, especially those that use the Platinum open-access model. While some commentators have suggested that editors of open-access journals with article-processing charges may be tempted to lower their scientific standards to maximise revenues, no evidence was found that such journals have higher acceptance rates than their subscription-based equivalents.

Trans-O-MIM-An International Research Project on Open Access Transformation: Outcomes and Lessons Learned.

During the last decades, the Open Access paradigm has become an important approach for publishing new scientific knowledge. From 2015 to 2020, the Trans-O-MIM research project was undertaken with the intention to identify and to explore solutions in transforming subscription-based journals into Open Access journals. Trans-O-MIM stands for strategies, models, and evaluation metrics for the goal-oriented, stepwise, sustainable, and fair transformation of established subscription-based scientific journals into Open-Access-based journals with Methods of Information in Medicine as an example. To present an overview of the outcomes of the Trans-O-MIM research project as a whole and to share our major lessons learned. As an approach for transforming journals, a Tandem Model has been proposed and implemented for Methods of Information in Medicine. For developing a metric to observe and assess journal transformations, scenario analysis has been used. A qualitative and a two-tier quantitative study on drivers and obstacles of Open Access publishing for medical informatics researchers was designed and conducted. A project setup with a research team, a steering committee, and an international advisory board was established. Major international medical informatics events have been used for reporting and for receiving feedback. Based on the Tandem Model, the journal Methods of Information in Medicine has been transformed into a journal where, in addition to its subscription-based track, from 2017 onwards a Gold Open Access track has been successfully added. An evaluation metric, composed of 5 scenarios and 65 parameters, has been developed, which can assist respective decision makers in assessing such transformations. The studies on drivers and obstacles of Open Access publishing showed that, while most researchers support the idea of making scientific knowledge freely accessible to everyone, they are hesitant about actually living this practice by choosing Open Access journals to publish their own work. Article-processing charges and quality issues are perceived as the main obstacles in this respect, revealing a two-sided evaluation of Open Access models, reflecting the different viewpoints of researchers as authors or readers. Especially researchers from low-income countries benefit from a barrier-free communication mainly in their role as readers and much less in their role as authors of scientific information. This became also evident at the institutional level, as Open Access policies or financial support through funding bodies are most prevalent in Europe and North America. With Trans-O-MIM, an international research project was performed. An existing journal has been transformed. In addition, with the support of the International Medical Informatics Association, as well as of the European Federation for Medical Informatics and of the German Association for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology as European and German medical informatics organizations, we did run an international experiment on Open Access incentives. Both together are, as far as the authors know, unique. We therefore expect that this research could add new knowledge on Open Access transformation.

Favouring Responsible Publishing: Creating a Database of Researchers and Surveying Their Knowledge, Attitudes and Opinions towards Open Access Publishing and a New Field-Specific Journal

Introduction: There may be value to understanding the interests and needs of a journal’s audience, particularly regarding open access publishing (OAP) and behaviours associated with predatory publishing while establishing a new field-specific journal. As a new journal facing potential challenges in the publishing space, the Journal of Natural Health Product Research (JNHPR) undertook a stakeholder and community feedback initiative on publishing research in the field of natural health products (NHPs). To our knowledge, this is the first study where academic representatives of the journal used this method to examine the knowledge, attitudes, and opinions of its potential audience. Methods: A database of international researchers in the NHP field was built using publicly available online data. Most NHP researchers were identified by a keyword-based, systematic search, with a small percentage discovered through snowball sampling. A survey was distributed to all identified researchers to collect their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions about OAP and the JNHPR. Results: The survey was completed by 167 NHP researchers and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about OAP. Most respondents were familiar with OAP and preferred the OAP model over a subscription-based journal. Additionally, responses indicated that OAP is a polarizing and controversial subject. Positives included the wider circulation and potential for shorter publication times, while negatives included the potential for less rigorous peer-review standards and generally higher costs. Regardless of perceptions on OAP, impact factor, reputation, scope, and indexing were the most valued factors when choosing a journal for submission. Discussion: According to the survey results, the JNHPR excels in some areas while also needing to improve in others. The journal succeeds in two areas: its broad scope, which attracts NHP researchers from a variety of disciplines, and its rapid publishing time. Indexing and further reduced publication fees for low-income nations were mentioned as areas in need of improvement. Conclusions: This approach may be useful to researchers who wish to launch their own journal in the future to gain a better understanding of their potential audience’s knowledge, attitudes, and opinions, allowing for better engagement and service.

Editorial: Open Access on the move

Editorial: Open Access on the move

Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries: a case study of Hungary

As the open access movement has gained widespread popularity in the scientific community, academic publishers have gradually adapted to the new environment. The pioneer open access journals have turned themselves into megajournals, and the subscription-based publishers have established open access branches and have turned subscription-based journals into hybrid ones. Maybe the most dramatic outcome of the open access boom is the market entry of such fast-growing open access publishers as Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). By 2021, in terms of the number of papers published, MDPI has become one of the largest academic publishers worldwide. However, the publisher’s market shares across countries and regions show an uneven pattern. Whereas in such scientific powers as the United States and China, MDPI has remained a relatively small-scale player, it has gained a high market share in Europe, particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In 2021, 28 percent of the SCI/SSCI papers authored/co-authored by researchers from CEE countries were published in MDPI journals, a share that was as high as the combined share of papers published by Elsevier and Springer Nature, the two largest academic publishers in the world. This paper seeks to find an explanation for the extensively growing share of MDPI in the publication outputs of CEE countries by choosing Hungary as a case study. To do this, by employing data analysis, some unique features of MDPI will be revealed. Then, we will present the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among Hungary-based researchers regarding MDPI and the factors that motivated them to publish in MDPI journals. Our results show that researchers generally consider MDPI journals’ sufficiently prestigious, emphasizing the importance of the inclusion of MDPI journals in Scopus and Web of Science databases and their high ranks and impacts. However, most researchers posit that the quick turnaround time that MDPI journals offer is the top driver of publishing in such journals.

The effect of Open Access on scientometric indicators of Russian economic journals

Numerous publishers view the Open Access (OA) model as one of the ways to strengthen journals’ position. Enhancing the visibility of publications is believed to increase research productivity. The paper explores the impact of OA on scientometric indicators of Russian economic journals. The theoretical basis is comprised of the data management approaches and scientometric management. The methods of scientometrics, bibliometrics and comparative analysis were applied. The paper looks at the main scientometric indicators used in the Science Index ranking: journal impact factor, self-citation rate, authors’ h-index, and the share of downloads. The data for analysis were retrieved from the eLibrary platform. The sample of the study includes open and closed access Russian economic journals from the list of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC). The results obtained indicate that scientometric indicators of OA journals are higher than those of subscription-based journals, while there are no significant differences between periodicals with paid and free publications. We have found that the OA model does not guarantee an increase in scientometric indicators: most of the titles in the sample are characterised by unstable scientific positions. The research demonstrates the opportunities for using scientometric and bibliometric analyses in the strategic management system of a scientific journal aimed at improving its academic reputation.

Open-access publishing: Boon or bane for Indian medical researchers?

The concept of Open-Access (OA) publishing was initiated in the early 2000s with the idea to provide free, equal, and OA of scientific knowledge to all communities and countries. The article published in an OA journal is freely available on the public internet and permits any users to read, download, copy, distribute, and print. The OA articles are published much sooner and are believed to get more citations than the articles published in subscription-based journals. Since the end-user does not have to pay to read an OA article, the author usually pays Article Processing Charges (APCs) to get his/her work published in OA journals. High APCs of OA journals are usually a serious concern for medical researchers in India, which restricts them to publish in OA journals. Since most OA journals are new, they tend to have low impact factors as compared to subscription-based journals, which prevent many good researchers to get their work published in OA journals. Furthermore, predatory journals exploit the idea of OA and tend to publish poor or very low-quality research papers. This has resulted in distrust among the authors and readers that OA publishing is not peer-reviewed or has low quality. In conclusion, publishing in OA journals has both pros and cons. With the Government of India’s ambitious “One Nation, One Subscription” policy in the pipeline, medical researchers in India are hopeful that soon both access and publishing in scientific journals will be free for all in the country.

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open-Access and Subscription-Based Otolaryngology Journals.

To describe the academic impact and author characteristics of open-access journals in otolaryngology. Original articles from three open-access (OTO Open, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, and World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology) and three conventional subscription-based otolaryngology specific journals (Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery) were assessed. Publication dates of articles from January 2017 to July 2020 were included. Google Scholar and Web of Science citation counts were recorded. H-indexes of first and last authors were included according to Google Scholar and Web of Science and analyzed. This analysis included 3284 articles. Articles published in open-access otolaryngology-specific journals had significantly fewer citations on average (6.8) than articles published in subscription-based journals (12.4, p < 0.0001). The last authors of articles published in subscription-based journals had significantly higher h-indexes (23.50) compared with the last authors of articles published in open-access journals (19.53, p < 0.0001). The first authors of articles published in open-access journals had similar h-indexes (10.26) as the first authors of articles published in subscription-based journals (10.33). Articles published in open-access journals in otolaryngology were cited significantly less than those published in subscription-based journals. The h-index of the last authors was significantly lower in open-access journals; however, the h-index of the first authors was similar between open-access and subscription-based journals. As measured by citations, open-access publications do not yet appear to have the impact of subscription-based publications. NA Laryngoscope, 133:79-82, 2023.

Assessment of Medical Students’ Knowledge and Access to Scientific Journal Articles in Jordan: Insufficient Knowledge Has Potentially Negative Effects on the Social Response to COVID-19

This study aims to evaluate medical students’ impressions and attitudes toward scientific journal articles, and their accessibility to them in one of the developing countries, Jordan. Fourteen questions were asked to medical students to assess their knowledge and accessibility to papers, and to discover the impact of low interest in scientific papers on students’ dealing with COVID-19. Data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics. The study found that there is an unsatisfactory reading for scientific journal articles among medical students, with only 47.2% of students reading them. Furthermore, there are unsatisfactory results regarding students’ knowledge about journal types from the trust perspective (i.e., predatory and reliable journals). This was mainly because of a lack of adequate universal teaching about scientific journal articles, as 86.7% of medical students reported that their universities do not teach them about scientific journal articles. The absence of comprehensive learning about scientific journal articles had a potential negative impact on the medical student’s handling of COVID-19 socially (i.e., advising people in the community about vaccination importance, social distancing, and other preventive measures). Librarians should be involved primarily in undergraduate education related to scientific journal articles, and their role in providing subscription-based journals free of charge, as well as protecting students from predatory journals through suitable library instructions, is essential.

Methodological Quality of Physical Therapy-Related Trials Published in Open Access and Subscription Journal: A Cross-sectional Meta-Epidemiological Study.

We aimed to compare the methodological quality of physical therapy-related trials published in open access with that of trials published in subscription-based journals, adjusting for subdiscipline, intervention type, endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, impact factor, and publication language. In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on May 8, 2021, to include any physical therapy-related trials published from January 1, 2020. We extracted variables such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials endorsement, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score, and publication type. We compared the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score between the publication types using a multivariable generalized estimating equation by adjusting for covariates. A total of 2743 trials were included, with a mean total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (standard deviation) of 5.8 (±1.5). Trials from open access journals had a lower total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score than those from subscription-based journals (5.5 ± 1.5 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, mean difference = -0.4; 95% confidence interval = 0.3-0.5). Generalized estimating equation revealed that open access publication was significantly associated with the total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (mean difference = -0.42; P < 0.001). In the recent physical therapy-related trials, open access publications demonstrated lower methodological quality than subscription-based publications, although with a small difference.

Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue

Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue

Attracting new users or business as usual? A case study of converting academic subscription-based journals to open access

AbstractThis paper studies a selection of 11 Norwegian journals in the humanities and social sciences and their conversion from subscription to open access, a move heavily incentivized by governmental mandates and open access policies. By investigating the journals’ visiting logs in the period 2014–2019, the study finds that a conversion to open access induces higher visiting numbers; all journals in the study had a significant increase, which can be attributed to the conversion. Converting a journal had no spillover in terms of increased visits to previously published articles still behind the paywall in the same journals. Visits from previously subscribing Norwegian higher education institutions did not account for the increase in visits, indicating that the increase must be accounted for by visitors from other sectors. The results could be relevant for policymakers concerning the effects of strict policies targeting economically vulnerable national journals, and could further inform journal owners and editors on the effects of converting to open access.

Publication Model, Ownership and Impact of the Top Endocrinology Journals

Background: Subscription-based (SB) is the traditional publication model for peer-reviewed research; however, open-access (OA) models have been rising in popularity in recent years. Journals may be owned by commercial, professional society, university or government publishers. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals.Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the publication model, ownership and SJR indicator of the top Endocrinology journals. This will help inform researchers’ decisions when selecting a journal to submit their work to.Methods: The SCImagoJR website was used to obtain a database of active, peer-reviewed Endocrinology journals worldwide. Publishers were grouped by parent company and categorized as commercial, professional society, university or government. Journals were searched on the National Library of Medicine catalogue to determine whether they are indexed on MEDLINE. Data was analyzed using IBM Statistics version 25. Fischer’s exact test was performed to assess the distribution of publication model and indexing status. Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to assess the distribution of SJR.Results: 207 Endocrinology journals were included; 134 SB (64.73%) and 73 OA (35.27%). 122 journals are indexed in MEDLINE. The top three publishers of Endocrinology journals are Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley, all of which are commercial entities. They collectively own 91/207 (43.96%) Endocrinology journals and 70/122 (57.38%) MEDLINE-indexed journals. The top three publishers own more SB than OA journals, though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.080). There was no significant difference in the distribution of indexing status across the top three publishers (p = 0.250) and the four publisher types (p = 0.928). There were significantly more SB than OA journals indexed in MEDLINE (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the distribution of SJR indicator across the top three publishers (p = 0.283) and publisher types (p = 0.873) (see Table 1). SB journals had significantly higher SJR indicators compared to OA journals (all journals, p = 0.002; indexed journals only, p = 0.013).CONCLUSIONS: Endocrinology journals are largely controlled by a few commercial entities and are primarily SB. Compared to OA, SB journals have significantly higher SJR indicators, meaning they are more influential. This is an important consideration for researchers when considering where to submit their work.