The issue of open access (OA) to scientific publications is attracting growing interest within the scientific community and among policy makers. Open access indicators are being calculated. In its 2019 ranking, the “Centre for Science and Technology Studies” (CWTS) provides the number and the share of OA publications per institution. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of institutions makes comparisons based on the shares of OA publications biased. We show that OA publishing practices vary considerably according to discipline. As a result, we propose two methods to normalize OA share; by WoS subject categories and by disciplines. Normalized Open Access Indicator (NOAI) corrects for disciplinary composition and allows a better comparability of institutions or countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
For confidentiality reasons, we cannot display the institution's names.
Anderson. (2017a). When the wolf finally arrives: big deal cancelations in North American Libraries. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved September 27, 2019, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/05/01/wolf-finally-arrives-big-deal-cancelations-north-american-libraries/.
Anderson. (2017b). The forbidden forecast: thinking about OA and library subscriptions. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved September 27, 2019, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/21/forbidden-forecast-thinking-open-access-library-subscriptions/.
Antelman, K. (2017). Leveraging the growth of OA in library collection decision making. In Proceeding from ACRL 2017: at the helm: leading transformation.
Archambault, É., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A. F., Provencher, F., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of OA papers published in peer-reviewed journals at the European and world levels–1996–2013. European Commission.
Borrego, Á. (2016). Measuring compliance with a Spanish Government OA mandate. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(4), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23422.
Björk, B.-C. (2017). Gold, green, and black OA. Learned Publishing,30(2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1096.
Björk, B.-C. (2016a). Hybrid OA—A longitudinal study. Journal of Informetrics,10(4), 919–932.
Björk, B.-C. (2016). The OA movement at a crossroad: Are the big publishers and academic social media taking over? Learned Publishing,29(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1021.
Björk, B.-C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green OA. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(2), 237–250.
Björk, B.-C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, G. (2010). OA to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE,5(6), e11273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273.
Bolick, J. (2017). Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo. Poster Session Presented at the Kraemer Copyright Conference. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1808/24107
CWTS Leiden Ranking (2019). https://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2019/list
European Commission. (2019). Trends for OA to publications. Data and case studies covering access to scientific publications. Bibliometric data as well as well as data on the policies of journals and funders are available. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-policy/open-science/open-science-monitor/trends-open-access-publications_en
Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of OA articles. PLoS Biology,4(5), e157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.
Guédon, J.-C. (2004). The “Green” and “Gold” Roads to OA: The Case for Mixing and Matching. Serials Review (Published by Elsevier Inc). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.005.
Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and gold OA percentages and growth, by discipline. https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3664
Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of OA (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1045/june2004-harnad.
Kozak, M., & Hartley, J. (2013). Publication fees for OA journals: Different disciplines—different methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22972.
Kristin, A. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College and Research, Libraries,65, 372–382. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.5.372.
Laakso, M., & Björk, B. C. (2012). Anatomy of OA publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine,10, 124.
Laakso, M., & Björk, B. (2013). Delayed OA: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(7), 1323–1329.
Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., Van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E.-D. (2018). Evidence of OA of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A largescale analysis. Journal of Informetrics,12(3), 819–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.012.
MESRI. (2019). Baromètre de la science ouverte, Paris. https://ministeresuprecherche.github.io/bso/
OST. (2019). Dynamics of scientific production in the world. Europe and in France, 2000–2016. Paris: Hcéres.
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of OA articles. PeerJ,6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375.
PSL. (2019). « 47 % des articles scientifiques français produits en 2017 sont en libre accès », (D. Egret, PSL) Paris—Publié le mardi 9 juillet 2019—Analyse no 151773. https://education.newstank.fr/fr/login/crashcookie/
Schimmer R., Geschuhn K. K., & Vogler, A. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to OA.
Schiermeier, Q., & Mega, E. R. (2017). Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals. Nature News,541(7635), 13.
Smith, E., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P., Fei, S., Ridde, V., & Larivière, V. (2017). Knowledge sharing in global health research; the impact, uptake and cost of OA to scholarly literature. BMC Health Research Policy and System,15, 73.
Schöpfel, J. (2017). OA to Scientific Information in Emerging Countries. D-Lib Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1045/march2017-schopfel.
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of OA: an evidence-based review (version 3; referees: 3 approved, 2 approved with reservations). F1000 Research,5, 632.
Universitat Konstanz. (2014). Teurer als die Wissenschaft erlaubt.
Université de Montréal. (2017). UdeM Libraries cancel Big Deal subscription to 2231 periodical titles. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
Van Leeuwen, T., Costas, R., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2019). Indicators of OA publishing in the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2019. https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2w2a4
Walker, T. J., & Soichi, T. (1998). Free internet access to traditional journals. Journal of Information Processing and Management,41(9), 678–694.
Zhu, Y. (2017). Who support OA publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics’ OA practice. Scientometrics,111, 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2316-z.
The author would like to thank Frédérique Sachwald, Lesya Baudoin and Mathieu Goudard for their comments on an earlier version and for their guidance in improving the manuscript. The author also wishes to thank the referees for their comments and suggestions, which have contributed to improve the paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Maddi, A. Measuring open access publications: a novel normalized open access indicator. Scientometrics 124, 379–398 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03470-0
- Open access
- Disciplinary differences
- Bibliometric indicators