Advertisement

Effects of journal choice on the visibility of scientific publications: a comparison between subscription-based and full Open Access models

  • Antonio Perianes-RodríguezEmail author
  • Carlos Olmeda-Gómez
Article

Abstract

This study analyses the performance of journals and publications based on their type of archiving policies. The main objective is the assessment of the feasibility of the journal typologies with a special emphasis on the comparison of both the subscription-based and the Open Access models. The analysis is backed by the combination of data contained in four of the main bibliographic databases to offer comprehensive, new and updated data on OA (Sherpa-RoMEO, DOAJ, Web of Science and Scopus). A total of 18.3 million articles and reviews were analysed between 2005 and 2015. In the comparison of Web of Science and Scopus, we found that the proportion of OA publications is 5% inferior in WoS. The growth of the total number of documents published in Gold OA journals is noteworthy in the period analysed. However, the study of the proportion of publications and citations in both databases revealed that Gold OA journals only increased their proportion of publications but not the proportion of citations. Trends in the proportion of highly cited publications (top 1%) depicted that OA journals were unable to exceed of this expected 1% in the 11 years under analysis.

Keywords

Open access Scientific performance Citation analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez would like to thank doctor Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka and doctor Theodore Papazoglou for valuable comments and suggestions on an early version of this article. In memory of Boris Kragelj.

References

  1. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L., et al. (2014). Proportion of Open Access papers published in peer-reviewed journals at the European and World levels (1996–2013). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Archambault, E., Cote, G., Struck, B., & Voorons, M. (2016). Research impact of paywalled versus open access papers. Quebec: Science-Metrix and 1science.Google Scholar
  3. Bjork, B. C. (2017a). Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016. PeerJ, 5(e3878), 10p.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjork, B. (2017b). Open Access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 112, 877–901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1603-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cambridge. (2018). How much do publishers charge for Open Access? Cambridge: University. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://osc.cam.ac.uk/open-access/open-access-policies/paying-open-access/how-much-do-publishers-charge-open-access.
  7. Coalition-S. (2018). Plan S. Making full and immediate Open Access a reality. Brussels: Science Europe. Retrieved April 4, 2019 from https://www.coalition-s.org/.
  8. Crawford W. (2016). Gold Open Access journals 20112015. Livermore (CA): Cites & Insights Books. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://waltcrawford.name/goaj1115.pdf.
  9. Crowe, M., & Carlyle, D. (2015). Is open access sufficient? A review of the quality of open-access nursing journals. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 24, 59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2008). Open Access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 337, a568.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorta-González, P., González-Betancor, S. M., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2016). Reconsidering the gold open Access citation advantage postulate in a multidisciplinary context: An analysis of the subject categories in the Web of Science database 2009–2014. Scientometrics, 112, 877–901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2422-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorta-González, P., & Santana-Jiménez, Y. (2018). Prevalence and citation advantage of gold open access in the subject areas of the Scopus database. Research Evaluation, 27(1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ennas, G., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). Features of top-rated gold open access journals: An analysis of the scopus database. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 79–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erfanmanesh, M. (2017). Status and quality of Open Access journals in Scopus. Collection Building, 36(4), 155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-02-2017-0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Union. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. ISBN: 978-92-79-97238-6,  https://doi.org/10.2777/836532.
  16. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of Open Access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gadd, E., Fry, J., & Creaser, C. (2018). The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1371–1393.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2716-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gadd, E., & Troll, Covey D. (2016). What does ‘green’ open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616657406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 674–688.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gumpenberger, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M. A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). On the impact of Gold Open Access journals. Scientometrics, 96(1), 221–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0902-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haug, C. J. (2019). No free lunch—What price Plan S for scientific publishing? New England Journal of Medicine, 380(12), 1181–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1900864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hua, F., Shen, C., Walsh, T., Glenny, A. M., & Worthington, H. (2017). Open Access: Concepts, findings and recommendations for stakeholders in dentistry. Journal of Dentistry, 64, 13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, D. W. (2016). Positive correlation between quality and quantity in academic journals. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 329–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joint, N. (2009). The Antaeus column: does the “open access” advantage exist? A librarian’s perspective. Library Review, 58(7), 476–481.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910978172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kohls, A., & Mele, S. (2018). Converting the literature of a scientific field to open access through global collaboration: The experience of SCOAP3 in Particle Physics. Publications.  https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laakso, M., & Bjork, B. C. (2017). Hybrid Open Access: A longitudinal study. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 919–932.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laakso, M., & Lindman, J. (2016). Journal copyright restrictions and actual Open Access availability: A study of articles published in eight top information systems journals (2010–2014). Scientometrics, 109(2), 1167–1189.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2078-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laakso, M., Solomon, D., & Bjork, B. C. (2016). How subscription-based scholarly journals can convert to open access: A review of approaches. Learned Publishing, 29, 259–269.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavizzari, C. S., & Viljoen, R. (2015). Open Access Licensing: a legal perspective for authors, publishers, funders, repository platform operators, and other stakeholders in the communication of science. London: Publishing Research Consortium.Google Scholar
  30. Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411(6837), 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGuigan, G. S., & Russell, R. D. (2008). The business of academic publishing: a strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3). http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html.
  32. McNutt, M. (2019). Plan S falls short for society publishers-and for the researchers they serve. PNAS, 116(7), 2400–2403.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900359116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miguel, S., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2011). Open Access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1130–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in Scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of “Open Access” on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2047–2054.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orduña-Malea, E., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2015). The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: The case of Latin-American repositories. Scientometrics, 102(1), 829–846.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1369-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pastorino, R., Milovanovic, S., Stojanovic, J., Efremov, L., Amore, R., & Boccia, S. (2016). Quality assessment of studies published in Open Access and subscription journals: Results of a systematic evaluation. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154217.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piwowar, H., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. Peer J, 6, e4375.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Purton, M., Michelangeli, F., & Fesus, L. (2019). Will Plan S put learned societies in jeopardy? FEBS Letters, 593(4), 383–385.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruiz-Pérez, S., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2017). Spanish researchers’ opinions, attitudes, and practices towards Open Access publishing. El profesional de la información, 26(4), 722–734.  https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.jul.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Science Europe. (2018). Making full and immediate Open Access a reality. Brussels: Science Europe. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://www.coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/.
  42. Science-Metrix. (2018). Analytical support for bibliometrics indicators: open access availability of scientific publications. Montreal: Science-Metrix. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from http://www.science-metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/publications/science-metrix_open_access_availability_scientific_publications_report.pdf.
  43. Solomon, D. J., Laakso, M., & Bjork, B. C. (2013). A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among Open Access journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 642–650.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spedding, M., Barrett, J., Morgan, E. T., Vore, M., Geraghty, D., Kirkpatrick, C., et al. (2019). Plan S: A threat to quality of science? Science, 363(6426), 462.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suber P. (2008). Gratis and libre Open Access. SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4322580/suber_oagratis.html?sequence=1.
  46. Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51763-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobranszki, J. (2019). Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(2), 162–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson, S., & Kanesarajah, V. (2017). The European Research Council: The first 10 years. London: Clarivate Analytics.Google Scholar
  49. Traag, V. A., & Waltman, L. (2019). Persistence of journal hierarchy in open access publishing. In 17th International conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 1339–1345). Rome (Italy).Google Scholar
  50. Van Noorden, R. (2013). The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426–429.  https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 365–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson, R., Cleary, M., Jackson, D., & Hunt, G. E. (2012). Open access and online publishing: a new frontier in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(9), 1905–1908.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06023.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson, R., & Hayter, M. (2019). Time to plan for Plan S. Nursing Open, 6(2), 206–207.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in Open Access and subscription journals. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0147913.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for Open Access to research and scholarship. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-23242-1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Biblioteconomía y DocumentaciónUniversidad Carlos IIIGetafeSpain

Personalised recommendations