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 Open Access

Communication ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart Baker
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Number Of Citations

Put simply, “open access” is the sharing of scholarly research at no cost to end users. Although it was first popularized in the Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin statements in 2002 and 2003, there is still no universally agreed-upon definition for the term. At a minimum, a work must be freely available at no cost. Most proponents agree, additionally, that work must be released under a license that allows for it to be freely copied, used, and modified to qualify as open access. Although open access typically refers to scholarly journal articles, it can also be applied to monographs, gray literature, and other types of scholarly and nonscholarly work. Research is made available as open access in a number of ways. The two main models are “green” open access, where published works are placed in a free-to-access repository, and “gold” open access, where journals publish articles under a license that allows readers free access to their contents. In the nearly twenty years since the first open access declarations, its proponents have been broadly successful in propagating the movement’s ideals, with the result that more and more research in many subject areas has been made available under a green, gold, or other open access model. Many studies have shown that publishing a work as open access increases the number of citations it receives and improves its scores on a variety of metrics, although not all studies show a positive relationship. The growing support for open access, and upcoming initiatives like Plan S, in which a consortium of funders will require open access publishing as a condition of receiving funding, as well as continuing interest in open access from scholars, libraries, publishers, funders, and societies alike, means that open access is set to become ever more relevant to those studying scholarly communications, and research on the topic continues to grow accordingly. Research about open access is often practical in nature, and typically comes from scholars and researchers of scholarly communication, the publishing industry, or library and information science; however, because the benefits of open access apply to those in nearly all fields of study, researchers should be prepared to find studies and proponents that are interdisciplinary in nature or are published in journals outside of the sphere of communications.

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? – An overview of methodological reviews (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Costa Araujo Sr ◽  
Adriane Aver Vanin Sr ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento Sr ◽  
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez Sr ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa Sr
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Publishing Journal

BACKGROUND The most common way to assess the impact of an article is based upon the number of citations. However, the number of citations do not precisely reflect if the message of the paper is reaching a wider audience. Currently, social media has been used to disseminate contents of scientific articles. In order to measure this type of impact a new tool named Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through the media online. OBJECTIVE This overview of methodological reviews aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and the publishing articles variables with Altmetric scores. METHODS Search strategies on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Cochrane Library including publications since the inception until July 2018 were conducted. We extracted data related to the publishing trial and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. RESULTS A total of 11 studies were considered eligible. These studies summarized a total of 565,352 articles. The variables citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts (i.e. considered as the sum of HTML views and PDF downloads), papers published as open access and press release generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from weak to moderate. CONCLUSIONS Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common associators of high Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals and the use of press releases are also likely to influence online media attention. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

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 Quality weighted citations versus total citations in the sciences and social sciences, with an application to finance and accounting

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 324-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Lin Chang ◽  
Michael McAleer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Additional Measure ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Article Influence

Purpose – Both journal self-citations and exchanged citations have the effect of increasing a journal’s impact factor, which may be deceptive. The purpose of this paper is to analyse academic journal quality and research impact using quality-weighted citations vs total citations, based on the widely used Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science citations database (ISI). A new Index of Citations Quality (ICQ) is presented, based on quality-weighted citations. Design/methodology/approach – The new index is used to analyse the leading 500 journals in both the sciences and social sciences, as well as finance and accounting, using quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAMs) that are based on alternative transformations of citations. Findings – It is shown that ICQ is a useful additional measure to 2-year impact factor (2YIF) and other well-known RAMs for the purpose of evaluating the impact and quality, as well as ranking, of journals as it contains information that has very low correlations with the information contained in the well-known RAMs for both the sciences and social sciences, and finance and accounting. Practical implications – Journals can, and do, inflate the number of citations through self-citation practices, which may be coercive. Another method for distorting journal impact is through a set of journals agreeing to cite each other, that is, by exchanging citations. This may be less coercive than self-citations, but is nonetheless unprofessional and distortionary. Social implications – The premise underlying the use of citations data is that higher quality journals generally have a higher number of citations. The impact of citations can be distorted in a number of ways, both consciously and unconsciously. Originality/value – Regardless of whether self-citations arise through collusive practices, the increase in citations will affect both 2YIF and 5-year impact factor (5YIF), though not Eigenfactor and Article Influence. This leads to an ICQ, where a higher ICQ would generally be preferred to lower. Unlike 5YIF, which is increased by journal self-citations and exchanged citations, and Eigenfactor and Article Influence, both of which are affected by quality-weighted exchanged citations, ICQ will be less affected by exchanged citations. In the absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary, 5YIF and AI are assumed to be affected similarly by exchanged citations.

scholarly journals Bibliometric analysis of multi-language veterinary journals

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-353
Author(s):  
Erwin KRAUSKOPF ◽  
Fernanda GARCIA ◽  
Robert FUNK
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Citation Distribution ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Main Language

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between language and total number of citations found among documents in journals written in English and other languages. We selected all the journals clustered together in the Journal Citation Reports 2014 under the subject category “Veterinary Sciences” and downloaded all the data registered between 1994-2013 by Web of Science for the journals that stated publishing documents in languages other than English. We classified each of these journals by quartile and extracted information regarding their impact factor, language(s) stated, country of origin, total number of documents published, total number of reviews published, percentage of documents published in English and the quartile in which each journal ranked. Of the 48,118 documents published by the 28 journals analyzed, 55.8% were published in English. Interestingly, although most of the journals state being multi-language, most documents published in quartile 1 journals were in English (an average of 99.2%), while the percentage was 93.1% in quartile 2 journals, 62.1% in quartile 3 journals and 27.4% in quartile 4 journals. We also confirmed that citation distribution in these journals was highly skewed. The results of this study suggest that journals should consider adopting English as the main language as this will increase citation counts and the impact factor of the journal.

scholarly journals Understanding citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taskin ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it has been revealed that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals. On the other hand, country and author self-citation practices of the journals should be considered. All the findings of this study underline the importance of the second part of this study, which will examine the contents of citations to articles published in predatory journals because understanding the motivations of the authors who cited blacklisted journals is important to correctly understand the citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals.

scholarly journals Microfracture: State of the Art in Cartilage Surgery?

Cartilage ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Frehner ◽  
Jan P. Benthien
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Yearly Average ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

Objective This study is a literature review from 2010 to 2014 concerning the quality of evidence in clinical trials about microfracture in attempt to repair articular cartilage. We have decided to focus on microfracturing, since this seems to be the best documented technique. Interest in evaluation of publication quality has risen in orthopaedic sports medicine recently. Therefore, we think it is necessary to evaluate recent clinical trials being rated for their evidence-based medicine (EBM) quality. We also compared the mean impact factor of the journals publishing the different studies as an indicator of the study’s citation and evaluated for a change over the studied time frame. Design To measure the EBM level, we applied the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) introduced by Jakobsen. The impact factor, which is a measurement of the yearly average number of citations of articles recently published in that journal, was evaluated according to self-reported values on the corresponding journal’s website. Results We found that the mean CMS has not changed between 2010 and 2014. The mean impact factor has also not changed between 2010 and 2014. The CMS variance was high, pointing to different qualities in the evaluated studies. There is no evidence that microfracturing is superior compared to other cartilage repair procedures. Conclusion Microfracture cannot be seen as an evidence based procedure. Further research needs to be done and a standardization of the operating method is desirable. There need to be more substantial studies on microfracturing alone without additional therapies.

Landmark Paper Index: Definition and Application to Rheological (η-) Journals

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kröger
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Impact Factor Journal ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Highly Cited Articles ◽  
Highly Cited

Abstract We define a Landmark Paper Index (LPI), calculate and analyze indices for all papers published in rheological journals (‘η-journals’) between 1990 and 2006. This paper offers some information about the criteria influencing the impact of publications on the (scientific) community. In opposite to the well known Impact Factor (journal sensitive) or the number of citations (article sensitive, publication year insensitive) the LPI helps to identify established and potential breakthrough contributions by considering the number of citations per year after publication, in a way which does not overestimate the few, highly cited, articles when performing averages. We discuss the effect of formal criteria on the LPI.

Citation Skew in Plastic Surgery Journals: Does the Journal Impact Factor Predict Individual Article Citation Rate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1136-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Austin Paul Kallarackal ◽  
Jesse Meaike ◽  
Aashish Rajesh ◽  
Rafael U de Azevedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Surgery Journals

Abstract Background Citation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal. Objectives We aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles. Methods We used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted. Results Thirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal’s IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P &lt; 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions Citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document