Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 1373–1394 | Cite as

Scientific potential of European fully open access journals

Article

Abstract

The scientific potential of European countries measured by their participation in publication of all peer-review journals as well as open access journals (OAJs) is significant. In this paper we focus on European fully open access journals (OAJs) as a potentially optimal channel of communication in science. We explore fully OAJs (n=1201) indexed by Scopus with several bibliometric indicators: quartile rankings, SJR (SCImago Journal Ranking) and h-index. As countries in our focus have entered EU at different times and have diverse backgrounds, we divide them into three groups: A (members before 1995), B (became members in 2004–2013 period) and C (EU candidate countries). Analysis across country groups is complemented with analysis across major subject fields. Quartile rankings indicate that journals in Q1 dominate in group A, followed by journals in Q2. In the remaining two country groups, journals belonging to Q3 have more than 50% of the share. Analysis by different scientific fields stresses that life and health sciences have the highest shares of OAJs in Q1. In physical sciences the highest share of OAJs is in Q3 while combined shares of Q2 and Q3 are above 50%. Only 10% of all European OAJs in social sciences is in Q1. Furthermore, we find the least difference between journals in group A and groups B and C in social sciences, both in respect to coverage and quality indicators. In all scientific fields median SJR indicators is, in the case of groups B and C, higher for OAJs than non-OAJs as opposed to group A.

Keywords

Open access journals Bibliometric analysis H-index SJR Quartiles EU countries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported in part from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant agreement No 645884 and by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project IP-09-2014-9351. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of REA (European Commission) or Croatian Science Foundation.

References

  1. Abadal, E., Melero, R., Rodrigues, R. S., & Navas-Fernández, M. (2015). Spanish scholarly journals in WoS and Scopus: The impact of open access”. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoli-Versbach, P., & Mueller-Langer, F. (2014). Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised. Research Policy, 43(9), 1621–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open access in India: Hopes and frustrations. Open scholarship: Authority, community, and sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, ELPUB 2008, (pp. 271–279).Google Scholar
  4. Atchison, A., & Bull, J. (2015). Will open access get me cited? An analysis of the efficacy of open access publishing in political science. PS—Political Science and Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001668.Google Scholar
  5. Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers. (2016). https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/. Accessed April 4, 2017.
  6. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. (2003). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities. Accessed January 7, 2017.
  7. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. (2003). http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2003/04/bethesda-statement-on-open-access-publishing/. Accessed January 7, 2017.
  8. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/. Accessed January 7, 2017.
  9. Björk, B. C. (2017). Open access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges. Internal and Emergency Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1603-2.Google Scholar
  10. Björk, B. C., Shen, C., & Laakso, M. (2016). A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals. PeerJ.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1990.Google Scholar
  11. Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-73.Google Scholar
  12. Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 103(2), 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Gussnason, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: situation 2009. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, D. (2016). Dutch lead European push to flip journals to open access. Nature.  https://doi.org/10.1038/529013a.Google Scholar
  15. Chinchilla-Rodrίguez, Z., Miguel, S., & Moya-Anegón, F. D. (2015). What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1414-4.Google Scholar
  16. Choudhury, S., Fishman, J. R., McGowan, M. L., & Juengst, E. T. (2014). Big data, open science and the brain: Lessons learned from genomics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00239.Google Scholar
  17. De Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J., González-Molina, A., et al. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4.Google Scholar
  18. Eger, T., Scheufen, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2015). The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany. European Journal of Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-015-9488-x.Google Scholar
  19. Ennas, G., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). Features of top-rated gold open access journals: An analysis of the scopus database. Journal of Informetrics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.007.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2012). Recommendation on the access to and preservation of scientific information. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-recommendation-access-and-preservation-scientific-information. Accessed January 10, 2017.
  21. Frandsen, T. F. (2009a). Attracted to open access journals: A bibliometric author analysis in the field of biology. Journal of Documentation.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910926121.Google Scholar
  22. Frandsen, T. F. (2009b). The integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system: Three science fields. Information Processing and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2008.06.001.Google Scholar
  23. Gaulé, P., & Maystre, N. (2011). Getting cited: Does open access help? Research Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.025.Google Scholar
  24. Geismar, H., & Küchler, S. (2014). On open access and journal futures. Journal of Material Culture.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183513515775.Google Scholar
  25. Ghane, M. R., & Niazmand, M. R. (2016). Current status of open access journals published in D8 countries and registered in the: Directory of open access journals (pre-2000 to 2014). Electronic Library.  https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2015-0107.Google Scholar
  26. Giglia, E. (2010). Open access to scientific research: where are we and where are we going? Facts and figures on the occasion of the 2010 open access week (October 18–24). European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(3), 461–469.Google Scholar
  27. González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002.Google Scholar
  28. Gumpenberger, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M.-A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). On the impact of gold open access journals. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0902-7.Google Scholar
  29. Gunasekaran, S., & Arunachalam, S. (2014). The impact factors of open access and subscription journals across fields. Current Science, 107(3), 380–388.Google Scholar
  30. Houghton J. (2009). Open Access—What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1492578. Accessed January 4, 2017.
  31. Hrynaszkiewicz, I. (2016). Open access journals: A sustainable and scalable solution in social and political sciences? European Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.87.Google Scholar
  32. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Rochet, Jean-Charles. (2007). The pricing of academic journals: A two-sided market perspective. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1002910 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1002910. Accessed December 25, 2016.
  33. Jokić, M. (2009). H-index as a new scientometric indicator [H-indeks kao novi scientometrijski indikator]. Biochemia Medica, 19(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
  34. Kieńć, W. (2017). Authors from the periphery countries choose open access more often. Learned Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1093.Google Scholar
  35. Koler-Povh, T., Južnič, P., & Turk, G. (2014). Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1101-x.Google Scholar
  36. Kozlowski, J., Radosevic, S., & Ircha, D. (1999). History matters: The inherited disciplinary structure of the post-communist science in countries of Central and Eastern Europe and its restructuring. Scientometrics, 45(1), 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laakso, M., Solomon, D., & Björk, B.-C. (2016). How subscription-based scholarly journals can convert to open access: A review of approaches. Learned Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1056.Google Scholar
  38. Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). the development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961.Google Scholar
  39. Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35079151.Google Scholar
  40. Lawrence, K. (2017). Open access is evolving and chemistryopen is Too! ChemistryOpen.  https://doi.org/10.1002/open.201600165.Google Scholar
  41. McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2014). Identifying the effect of open access on citations using a panel of science journals. Economic Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12064.Google Scholar
  42. McCullough, B. D. (2009). Open access economics journals and the market for reproducible economic research. Economic Analysis and Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50047-1.Google Scholar
  43. Migheli, M., & Ramello, G. B. (2014). Open access journals and academics’ behaviour. Economic Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12131.Google Scholar
  44. Miguel, S., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., & De Moya-Anegõn, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21532.Google Scholar
  45. Nederhof, A. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.Google Scholar
  46. Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2016). The total cost of publication in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446.Google Scholar
  47. Pisoschi, A. M., & Pisoschi, C. G. (2016). Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals? Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2088-x.Google Scholar
  48. Radosevic, S., & Lepori, B. (2009). Public research funding systems in central and eastern Europe: Between excellence and relevance: Introduction to special section. Science and Public Policy, 36(9), 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salisbury, L., Chowdhury, A. R., & Smith, J. J. (2017). Faculty publications from a research university: The scholarly impact of open access versus non-open access. Science and Technology Libraries.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2016.1273815.Google Scholar
  50. Schöpfel, J. (2015). Open access—the rise and fall of a community driven model of scientific communication. Learned Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1087/20150413.Google Scholar
  51. Solomon, D. J. (2013). Types of open access publishers in Scopus. Publications.  https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1010016.Google Scholar
  52. Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B.-C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673.Google Scholar
  53. Solomon, D. J., Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2013). A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals. Journal of Informetrics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.008.Google Scholar
  54. Sotudeh, H., & Horri, A. (2007). Tracking open access journals evolution: Some considerations in open access data collection validation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20639.Google Scholar
  55. Swan, A. (2010).The open access citation advantage: studies and results to date, school of electronics and computer science. University of Southampton, UK, http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/716-Alma-Swan-Review-of-Studies-on-Open-Access-Impact-Advantage.html. Accessed December 21, 2016.
  56. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access. Learned Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1087/095315104323159649.Google Scholar
  57. Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (2005). isms in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578023.Google Scholar
  58. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.1.Google Scholar
  59. Walters, W. H., & Linvill, A. C. (2011). Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21569.Google Scholar
  60. Willinsky, J. (2009). The stratified economics of open access. Economic Analysis and Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50043-4.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, V. (2016). Research methods: Altmetrics. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(Special issues 1), 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wohlrabe, K. & Birkmeier, D. (2014). Do open access articles in economics have a citation advantage? MPRA_paper_56842.pdf, https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/56842/1/MPRA_paper_56842.pdf. Accessed December 23, 2016.
  63. Xia, J. (2012). Positioning open access journals in a LIS journal ranking. College and Research Libraries, 73(2), 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xu, J., Dave, N., Su, J., & Zeng, Y. (2016). Are open access journals trusted by Chinese scholars? Wuhan Daxue Xuebao (Xinxi Kexue Ban)/Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 41, 131–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social Research in ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.The Institute of Economics ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations