scholarly journals The meaning of the 'impact factor' in the case of an open-access journal

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgii A Alexandrov
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article’s citations

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
SK Chua ◽  
Ahmad M Qureshi ◽  
Vijay Krishnan ◽  
Dinker R Pai ◽  
Laila B Kamal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Spearman's Rho ◽  
Spearman’S Rho ◽  
Beta Coefficient ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

Background Citations of papers are positively influenced by the journal’s impact factor (IF). For non-open access (non-OA) journals, this influence may be due to the fact that high-IF journals are more often purchased by libraries, and are therefore more often available to researchers, than low-IF journals. This positive influence has not, however, been shown specifically for papers published in open access (OA) journals, which are universally accessible, and do not need library purchase. It is therefore important to ascertain if the IF influences citations in OA journals too. Methods 203 randomized controlled trials (102 OA and 101 non-OA) published in January 2011 were included in the study. Five-year citations for papers published in OA journals were compared to those for non-OA journals. Source papers were derived from PubMed. Citations were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The Thompson-Reuter’s IF was used. Results OA journals were found to have significantly more citations overall compared to non-OA journals (median 15.5 vs 12, p=0.039). The IF did not correlate with citations for OA journals (Spearman’s rho =0.187, p=0.60). The increase in the citations with increasing IF was minimal for OA journals (beta coefficient = 3.346, 95% CI -0.464, 7.156, p=0.084). In contrast, the IF did show moderate correlation with citations for articles published in non-OA journals (Spearman’s rho=0.514, p<0.001). The increase in the number of citations was also significant (beta coefficient = 4.347, 95% CI 2.42, 6.274, p<0.001). Conclusion It is better to publish in an OA journal for more citations. It may not be worth paying high publishing fees for higher IF journals, because there is minimal gain in terms of increased number of citations. On the other hand, if one wishes to publish in a non-OA journal, it is better to choose one with a high IF.

scholarly journals Open access journals are as likely to be referenced by the Orthopaedic literature, despite having a lower impact factor than subscription-based journals

SICOT-J ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Robert Cooke ◽  
Neil Jain
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Orthopaedic Literature ◽  
Top 40 ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

Background: The internet has changed the way we access and publish Orthopaedic literature. Traditional subscription journals have been challenged by the open access method of publication which permits the author to make their article available to all readers for free, often at a cost to the author. This has also been adopted in part by traditional subscription journals forming hybrid journals. One of the criticisms of open access publications is that it provides the author with a “pay to publish” opportunity. We aimed to determine if access to the journals impacts their influence. Methods: We selected the top 40 Trauma and Orthopaedic Journals as ranked by the SCImago Rank. Each journal was reviewed and assessed for the journal quality, defined by reviewing the journal impact factor and SCImago rank; influence, defined by reviewing the top 10 articles provided by the journal for the number of citations; and cost of open access publication. Results: Of the top 40 journals, 10 were subscription, 10 were open access, and 20 were hybrid journals. Subscription journals had the highest mean impact factor, and SCImago rank with a significant difference in the impact factor (p = 0.001) and SCImago rank (p = 0.021) observed between subscription and open access journals. No significant difference was seen between citation numbers of articles published in subscription and open access journals (p = 0.168). There was a positive correlation between the cost of publishing in an open access journal and the impact factor (r = 0.404) but a negative correlation between cost and the number of citations (r = 0.319). Conclusion: Open access journals have significantly lower quality measures in comparison to subscription journals. Despite this, we found no difference between the number of citations, suggestive of there being no difference in the influence of these journals in spite of the observed difference in quality.

scholarly journals Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Carmen López-Vergara ◽  
Pilar Flores Asenjo ◽  
Alfonso Rosa-García
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Economic Incentive ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Open Access Publication ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
The Impact

Technological development has transformed academic publication over the past two decades and new publication models, especially Open Access, have captured an important part of the publishing market, traditionally dominated by the Subscription publication model. Although Health Sciences have been one of the leading fields promoting Open Access, the perspectives of Health Science researchers on the benefits and possibilities of Open Access remain an open question. The present study sought to unveil the perspective of researchers on scientific publication decisions, in terms of the Subscription and Open Access publication model, Gold Road. With this aim, we surveyed Spanish researchers in Health Sciences. Our findings show that the value of publishing in Open Access journals increases as the experience of the researcher increases and the less she/he values the impact factor. Moreover, visibility and dissemination of the results are the main determinants of publication when choosing an Open Access journal as the first option. According to the response of the researchers, the reduction of fees and the increase in financing are important economic incentive measures to promote the Open Access publication model. It is widely accepted that the volume of Open Access publications will increase in the future.

scholarly journals Taxonomic papers as published products of the biodiversity inventory: if not the Impact Factor (IF) or Quartiles (Q), then what determines their importance estimated on the basis of the Research Interest Score?

Biologija ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktorija Dobrynina ◽  
Svetlana Baryshnikova ◽  
Eduardas Budrys ◽  
Jolanta Rimšaitė ◽  
Oleksiy Bidzilya
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Research Interest ◽  
Plant Insect Interactions ◽  
Biodiversity Inventory ◽  
Biological Inventory ◽  
Insect Interactions ◽  
Criteria For Evaluation ◽  
The Impact

This study is uniquely based on the Research Interest Score (RGRI) and not on other existing bibliometric criteria for evaluation of published biological inventory products (articles and monographs). RGRI is a ResearchGate.net score that measures scientists’ interest in the publication and is based on its citations, recommendations, and reads. Our data revealed that high RGRI scores of publications were generally not determined by the journal’s Impact Factor (IF) or high quartiles (Q). However, open access to publications undoubtedly creates the strongest preconditions for the rise of RGRI. The importance and popularity of a publications can also be affected by its various other characteristics, for example, international collaboration of authors, ecological issues such as plant-insect interactions, and even the wording of the publication title.

scholarly journals Open Access Works are as Reliable as Other Publishing Models at Retracting Flawed Articles from the Biomedical Literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Margaret Stovold
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
American Society ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Peterson, G.M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(12), 2428-2436. doi: 10.1002/asi.22944 Abstract Objective – To investigate whether the rate of retracted articles and citation rates post-retraction in the biomedical literature are comparable across open access, free-to-access, or pay-to-access journals. Design – Citation analysis. Setting – Biomedical literature. Subjects – 160 retracted papers published between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2010. Methods – For the retracted papers, 100 records were retrieved from the PubMed database and 100 records from the PubMed Central (PMC) open access subset. Records were selected at random, based on the PubMed identifier. Each article was assigned a number based on its accessibility using the specific criteria. Articles published in the PMC open access subset were assigned a 2; articles retrieved from PubMed that were freely accessible, but did not meet the criteria for open access were assigned a 1; and articles retrieved through PubMed which were pay-to-access were assigned a 0. This allowed articles to be grouped and compared by accessibility. Citation information was collected primarily from the Science Citation Index. Articles for which no citation information was available, and those with a lifetime citation of 0 (or 1 where the citation came from the retraction statement) were excluded, leaving 160 articles for analysis. Information on the impact factor of the journals was retrieved and the analysis was performed twice; first with the entire set, and second after excluding articles published in journals with an impact factor of 10 or above (14% of the total). The average number of citations per month was used to compare citation rates, and the percentage change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was calculated. Information was also collected on the time between the date the original article was published and the date of retraction, and the availability of information on the reason for the retraction. Main results – The overall rate of retracted articles in the PMC open access subset compared with the wider PubMed dataset was similar (0.049% and 0.028% respectively). In the group with an accessibility rating of 0, the change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was -41%. For the group with an accessibility rating of 1, the change was -47% and in those with a rating of 2, the change in citation rate was -59%. Removing articles published in high impact factor journals did not change the results significantly. Retractions were issued more slowly for free access papers compared with open or fee-based articles. The bibliographic records for open access articles disclosed details of the reason for the retraction more frequently than free, non-open papers (91% compared to 53%). Conclusion – Open access literature is similar in its rate of retraction and the reduction in post-retraction citations to the rest of the biomedical literature, and is actually more reliable at reporting the reason for the retraction.

scholarly journals Modeling and Prediction of the Impact Factor of Journals Using Open-Access Databases

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 35-58
Author(s):  
Matthias Templ
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Functional Relationships ◽  
Modeling And Prediction ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
The Web

This article is motivated by the work as editor-in-chief of the Austrian Journal of Statistics and contains detailed analyses about the impact of the Austrian Journal of Statistics. The impact of a journal is typically expressed by journal metrics indicators. One of the important ones, the journal impact factor is calculated from the Web of Science (WoS) database by Clarivate Analytics. It is known that newly established journals or journals without membership in big publishers often face difficulties to be included, e.g., in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and thus they do not receive a WoS journal impact factor, as it is the case for example, for the Austrian Journal of Statistics. In this study, a novel approach is pursued modeling and predicting the WoS impact factor of journals using open access or partly open-access databases, like Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus. I hypothesize a functional linear dependency between citation counts in these databases and the journal impact factor. These functional relationships enable the development of a model that may allow estimating the impact factor for new, small, and independent journals not listed in SCI. However, only good results could be achieved with robust linear regression and well-chosen models. In addition, this study demonstrates that the WoS impact factor of SCI listed journals can be successfully estimated without using the Web of Science database and therefore the dependency of researchers and institutions to this popular database can be minimized. These results suggest that the statistical model developed here can be well applied to predict the WoS impact factor using alternative open-access databases. 

scholarly journals Open Access Journals – The way forward for out-of-hospital research publications

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm Boyle
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Healthcare Provider ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
General Community ◽  
Hospital Research

The open access journal is becoming a common place to publish compared to the traditional paper based journal as the work is readily available to the research and general community.  The academic community place a lot of emphasis on the quality and impact factor of journals.  There are numerous problems with this stance especially for academic paramedics and the general out-of-hospital healthcare provider.  Some in the academic community look upon open access journals as not being “proper” or “lacking in quality”. In the majority of instances this is not the case as the open access journals have comparable international editorial boards who oversee the manuscript handling processes.

scholarly journals Seeking Impact and Visibility: Scholarly Communication in Southern Africa

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Trotter ◽  
Catherine Kell ◽  
Michelle Willmers ◽  
Eve Gray ◽  
Thomas K.C. King
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Production ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Scholarly Production ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Administrative Innovations

African scholarly research is relatively invisible globally because even though research production on the continent is growing in absolute terms, it is falling in comparative terms. In addition, traditional metrics of visibility, such as the Impact Factor, fail to make legible all African scholarly production. Many African universities also do not take a strategic approach to scholarly communication to broaden the reach of their scholars'work. To address this challenge, the Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme (SCAP) was established to help raise the visibility of African scholarship by mapping current research and communication practices in Southern African universities and by recommending and piloting technical and administrative innovations based on open access dissemination principles. To do this, SCAP conducted extensive research in four faculties at the Universities of Botswana, Cape Town, Mauritius and Namibia.

scholarly journals Computational Semantics in Clinical Text Supplement

2013 ◽  
Vol 6s1 ◽  
pp. BII.S11868
Author(s):  
John P. Pestian
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Biomedical Informatics ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Computational Semantics ◽  
Clinical Text ◽  
Knowledge Resources ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
The Impact

As scientists, we create and disseminate knowledge. Resources from various benefactors open the doors of discovery. Likewise, we are obliged to disseminate our finding where they will have an impact. We want our thoughts and words to be heard. Yet, neither creation nor dissemination of newfound knowledge is easy. Some facts are more stubborn than others; prying them loose and describing them takes effort and discipline. In the 1980's some of challenges to dissemination were reduced when open-access journals emerged. While the hallowed peer-review process remained, these journals provided access to knowledge without financial, legal or technical constraints to the reader. They provided an innovative venue to disseminate findings by using the world wide web as the main source of distribution. 1 The impact of these journals is growing. In 2000 there were 740 open-access journals that produced 19,500 articles. In 2009, this grew to 4769 journals and 191,850 articles; this represents 20% of scholarly publications. 2 In the open access world, the journal increasingly assumes the distribution role formerly undertaken by institutional libraries, while maintaining essential editorial quality. Intuitively, the increased accessibility of open access journals ought to lead to a greater number of citations. Numerous studies have verified this. 3 Multiple studies have shown that articles published in an open access journal are referenced more frequently than those published elsewhere. 3 , 4 I acknowledge that other factors influence whether a paper is cited aside from its publication in an open access journal: it must be widely accessible through the channels that researchers employ and–-at the risk of making a trite argument–-the paper must have sufficient merit to justify being cited. All of this supports the emerging importance of Biomedical Informatics Insights as a vehicle for disseminating scientific findings. In this special issue we present a second series of conference proceedings. The first, Sentiment Analysis of Suicide Notes: A Shared Task, 5 produced over 20 manuscripts and was published soon after the conference. This issue reviews the scientific productivity of the first Computational Semantics in Clinical Text conference. This conference, chaired by Drs. Stephen Wu, Nigam Shah, and Kevin Bretonnel Cohen is described elsewhere, but it is an honor for Biomedical Informatics Insights to be the repository of the proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document