Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA
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 analysisNotes
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
- 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
- Almetric (2016). How is the Altmetric attention score calculated?. https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060969-how-is-the-altmetric-score-calculated.
- Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Author Insights Survey. (2015). https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/3337994.
- 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
- Bhattacharya, S., Shilpa, & Bhati, M. (2012). China and India: The two new players in the nanotechnology race. Scientometrics, 93(1), 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- CWTS Leiden Ranking. (2013). http://www.leidenranking.com/Content/CWTS%20Leiden%20Ranking%202013.pdf.
- Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (2014). Measuring scholarly impact. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gershenson, E. B. C. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- He, T. (2009). International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries. Scientometrics, 80(3), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lewis, D. W. (2012). The inevitability of open access. College & Research Libraries, 73(5), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Science and Engineering Indicators. (2016). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-5/outputs-of-s-e-research-publications-and-patents/s-e-publication-output.
- 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
- 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
- Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Werner, R. (2015). The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature, 517(7534), 245–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yang, S., & Han, R. (2015). Breadth and depth of citation distribution. Information Processing and Management, 51(2), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Yu, H. (2017). Context of altmetrics data matters: An investigation of count type and user category. Scientometrics, 111(1), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2008). Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences? Scientometrics, 79(3), 593–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhu, Q., & Willett, P. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of chinese superconductivity research, 1986–2007. Aslib Proceedings, 63(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar