Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 1017–1037 | Cite as

Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA

Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

We analyze the impact of open-access (OA) articles published by China and the USA by using Web of Science (WoS) data covering a period of 5 years (2011–2015), five indexes (citation and four altmetric indexes), five disciplines, and three types of articles. With regard to article type, Type I papers are those wherein the authors are all from China or the USA. Type II are those in which the first author is from China or the USA. Type III includes those in which the first author is not from China or the USA. We found that the proportion of OA papers in WoS has been growing in recent years. In terms of citations and altmetric indexes, the mean value of the USA is larger than that of China in general; Type II articles possess the highest value among all papers in the USA, whereas Type III has the highest value in China. Compared with the scenario in citations, social sciences and humanities possess larger altmetric values in China and the USA. The correlation among indicators is similar for the OA papers from China and the USA. Generally, citations cannot effectively represent the altmetric indexes. The gap between China and the USA is the largest in the altmetric attention score and Type I, and the smallest in citations and Type III. Measuring the international impact of OA papers using only citations underestimates the gap between China and the USA.

Keywords

Open access Altmetrics Research evaluation Country Citation analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

Gratitude is extended to Altmetric.com for providing altmetrics data and to Dr. Zhigang Hu for accessing the WoS data. This research is funded by the National Social Science Fund Key Project of P.R. China (17ATQ009).

References

  1. Alhoori, H., Ray Choudhury, S., Kanan, T., Fox, E., Furuta, R., & Giles, C. L. (2015). On the relationship between open access and altmetrics. In iConference 2015 proceedings.Google Scholar
  2. Almetric (2016). How is the Altmetric attention score calculated?. https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060969-how-is-the-altmetric-score-calculated.
  3. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Author Insights Survey. (2015). https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/3337994.
  5. Bai, X., Xia, F., Lee, I., Zhang, J., & Ning, Z. (2016). Identifying anomalous citations for objective evaluation of scholarly article impact. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0162364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattacharya, S., Shilpa, & Bhati, M. (2012). China and India: The two new players in the nanotechnology race. Scientometrics, 93(1), 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornmann, L. (2017). Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1036–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (2014). Measuring scholarly impact. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorta-Gonzalez, P., & Dorta-González, M. I. (2013). Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 95(2), 645–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C. J., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gershenson, E. B. C. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2007). China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’. Research Policy, 36(6), 880–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-lib Magazine, 10(6), 73–84.Google Scholar
  21. Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He, T. (2009). International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries. Scientometrics, 80(3), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. W. (2012). The inevitability of open access. College & Research Libraries, 73(5), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The european union, china, and the united states in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2016). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1198–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moiwo, J. P., & Tao, F. (2013). The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1031–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mounce, R. (2013). Open access and altmetrics: Distinct but complementary. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1113–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Werner, R. (2015). The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature, 517(7534), 245–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang, S., & Han, R. (2015). Breadth and depth of citation distribution. Information Processing and Management, 51(2), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang, S., Wolfram, D., & Wang, F. (2017). The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: A comparison of three general medical journals. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1273–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu, H. (2017). Context of altmetrics data matters: An investigation of count type and user category. Scientometrics, 111(1), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yuan, S., & Hua, W. (2011). Scholarly impact measurements of LIS open access journals: Based on citations and links. The Electronic Library, 29(5), 682–697.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou, P. (2013). The growth momentum of china in producing international scientific publications seems to have slowed down. Information Processing and Management, 49(5), 1049–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2008). Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences? Scientometrics, 79(3), 593–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhu, Q., & Willett, P. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of chinese superconductivity research, 1986–2007. Aslib Proceedings, 63(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information ManagementWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Information StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.The Center for Studies of Information ResourcesWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations