Advertisement

Examining the influence of open access on journals’ citation obsolescence by modeling the actual citation process

  • Mingyang Wang
  • Jiaqi Zhang
  • Guangsheng ChenEmail author
  • Kah-Hin Chai
Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

This paper aims to quantify and analyze the impact of open access (OA) on the obsolescence characteristics of journals. A total of 15 journals that changed their status from closed to open access in 2012 and 2013 were selected for a longitudinal obsolescence investigation. Based on the cumulative citation rate distribution model, two ageing time parameters were identified from the actual citation process to quantify the obsolescence of cited journals. The experimental results show that the journal presents three different obsolete phenomena: “Sustainable growth”, “Oscillatory decline” and “Flash in the pan”. OA does have an impact on the obsolescence characteristics of the journal, which is expressed as an increase in the value of the ageing time parameter for any category of journals during or after their conversion year. But this impact does not necessarily persist over time, especially for the latter two types of journals. And OA does affect readers’ concern about the old articles in journals, but this concern may also be short-lived. For journals of “Oscillatory decline” and “Flash in the pan”, their recently published articles will be more concerned than old ones, which has directly led to the growth of journal impact factors. For most of the “Sustainable growth” journals, it has shown a “polarization” tendency of citation distribution: towards citing more newly and more old publications, which also helps to improve the impact factor of journals. However, there are still a few “Sustainable growth” journals with their older articles are more likely to receive attention than newly published ones. In addition to extending the ageing trend for these journals, it does not help to improve journal impact factors. Therefore, OA does not necessarily improve the impact factor of journals.

Keywords

Open access Obsolescence Citation distribution model Impact factor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71473034), the financial assistance from Postdoctoral Scientific Research Developmental Fund of Heilongjiang Province (Grant No. LBH-Q16003), and Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province of China (Grant No. F2018001).

Supplementary material

11192_2019_3085_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1495 kb)

References

  1. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Femandez, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., & Russell, J. M. (2017). Has hosting on science direct improved the visibility of Latin American scholar journals? A preliminary analysis of data quality. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1463–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarado, R. U. (2014). Synchronic study of literature obsolescence: The case of Lotka’s Law. Investigacion Bibliotecologica, 28(63), 85–113.Google Scholar
  4. Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2017). Integrated vs. add-on: A multidimensional conceptualization of technology obsolescence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open-access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2011). The effect of a two-stage publication process on the Journal Impact Factor: A case study on the interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Scientometrics, 86(1), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouabid, H. (2011). Revisiting citation aging: A model for citation distribution and life-cycle prediction. Scientometrics, 88(1), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouabid, H., & Lariviere, V. (2013). The lengthening of papers’ life expectancy: A diachronous analysis. Scientometrics, 97(3), 695–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrell, Q. L. (2001). Stochastic modelling of the first-citation distribution. Scientometrics, 52(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., & Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the intellectual structure of research in business ethics: A journey through the history, the classics, and the pillars of Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campos, J. L. A., Sobral, A., Silva, J. S., Araujo, T. A. S., Ferreira, W. S., Santoro, F. R., et al. (2016). Insularity and citation behavior of scientific articles in young fields: The case of ethnobiology. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1037–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi Chang, C. (2006). Business models for open access journals publishing. Online Information Review, 30(6), 699–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho, S. R. (2008). New evaluation indexes for articles and authors’ academic achievements based on open access resources. Scientometrics, 77(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dermarest, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). Argue, observe, assess: Measuring disciplinary identities and differences through socio-epistemic discourse. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1374–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duan, Y. F., & Xiong, Z. Q. (2017). Download patterns of journal papers and their influencing factors. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1761–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Echeverria, M., Stuart, D., & Cordon-Garcia, J. A. (2017). The influence of online posting dates on the bibliometric indicators of scientific articles. Revista Española De Documentación Cientifica, 40(3), e183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Egghe, L. (2004). Solution of a problem of Buckland on the influence of obsolescence on scattering. Scientometrics, 59(2), 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2000). The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, J. A. (2008). Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science, 321(5887), 395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open-access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fukuzawa, N. (2017). Characteristics of papers published in journals: An analysis of open access journals, country of publication, and languages used. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gadd, E., Fry, J., & Creaser, C. (2017). The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1371–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glänzel, W. (2004). Towards a model for diachronous and synchronous citation analyses. Scientometrics, 60(3), 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P. S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gök, A., Rigby, J., & Shapira, P. (2016). The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gorbea-Portal, S., & Atrian-Salazar, M. L. (2018). Measurement of data obsolescence in public health journals of Mexico. Gaceta Medica de Mexico, 154(3), 335–341.Google Scholar
  29. Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66(1713), 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grover, R., & Grover, C. (2015). Obsolescence—A case for concern? Journal of Propertyinvestment & Finance, 33(3), 299–314.Google Scholar
  31. Gumpenberger, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M. A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). On the impact of gold open access journals. Scientometrics, 96(1), 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harzing, A. W., & Adler, N. J. (2016). Disseminating knowledge: From potential to reality-new open-access journals collide with convention. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(1), 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ho, Y. S. (2014). Classic articles on social work field in Social Science Citation Index: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 98(1), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jokic, M., Mervar, A., & Mateljan, S. (2017). Scientific potential of European fully open access journals. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1373–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, E., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2004). Sales force obsolescence: Perceptions from sales and marketing executives of individual, organizational, and environmental factors. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Line, M. B. (1970). The ‘half-life’ of periodical literature: Apparent and real obsolescence. Journal of Documentation, 26(1), 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 819–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mikki, S. (2017). Scholarly publications beyond pay-walls: Increased citation advantage for open publishing. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1529–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moed, H. F. (1989). Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Price’s theory of differences among the sciences. Scientometrics, 15(5–6), 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pisoschi, A. M., & Pisoschi, C. G. (2016). Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pooladian, A., & Borrego, A. (2017). Methodological issues in measuring citations in Wikipedia: A case study in library and information science. Scientometrics, 113(1), 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Price, D. J. D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E. (2017). Academics’ behavior’s and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology., 68(5), 1201–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sarigol, E., Garcia, D., Scholtes, I., & Schweitzer, F. (2017). Quantifying the effect of editor-author relations on manuscript handling times. Scientometrics, 113(1), 609–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Serenko, A., & Dumay, J. (2015). Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part II: Studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar effect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1335–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Small, H. (2010). Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: Co-citation contexts and the role of analogy. Scientometrics, 83(3), 835–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, E., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P., Shu, F., Ridde, V., & Larivière, V. (2017). Knowledge sharing in global health research—The impact, untake and cost of open access to scholarly literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sotelo-Cruz, N., Atrian-Salazar, M. L., & Trujillo-Lopez, S. (2016). Indicators of obsolescence of the medical literature in a mexican pediatric journal. Gaceta Medica de Mexico, 152(2), 202–207.Google Scholar
  51. Sotudeh, H., & Horri, A. (2008). Great expectations: The role of open access in improving countries’ recognition. Scientometrics, 76(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tonta, Y. A. (2005). Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tort, A. B. L., Targino, Z. H., & Amaral, O. B. (2012). Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e53374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science. Scientometrics, 47(2), 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verstak, A., Acharya, A., Suzuki, H., Henderson, S., Lakhiaev, M., Lin, C. C. Y., & Shetty, N. (2014). On the shoulders of giants: The growing impact of older articles. http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275.
  56. Wang, X. W., Liu, C., Mao, W. L., & Fang, Z. C. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yan, E., & Li, K. (2017). Which domains do open-access journals do best in? A 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(6), 844–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, S. L., Xing, X., & Wolfram, D. (2017). Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA. Scientometrics, 115(2), 1017–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu, G., & Li, Y. J. (2007). Parameter identification of the observed citation distribution. Scientometrics, 71(2), 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yu, G., & Li, Y. J. (2010). Identification of referencing and citation processes of scientific journals based on the citation distribution model. Scientometrics, 82(2), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu, G., Rong, Y. H., & Li, Y. J. (2003). Mathematical model of delay in the secondary literature publishing process. Scientometrics, 58(3), 685–773.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yu, G., Wang, X. H., & Yu, D. R. (2005). The influence of publication delays on impact factors. Scientometrics, 64(2), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, G. J., Feng, Y. Q., Yu, G., Liu, L. N., & Hao, Y. Q. Q. (2017). Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1287–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2017a). A citation-based cross disciplinary study on literature aging: part I—the synchronous approach. Scientometrics, 111, 1573–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2017b). A citation-based cross disciplinary study on literature aging: Part II—Dischronous aspects. Scientometrics, 111, 1559–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information and Computer EngineeringNortheast Forestry UniversityHarbinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Industrial and Systems EngineeringNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations