The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics

Replication failures of influential findings across fields of science have contributed to a credibility crisis, and the sub-area of human electrophysiology has not escaped unscathed. In an effort to restore credibility, recent initiatives aim to improve methodological rigor of research via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions. These findings demonstrate that open-access publishing is increasing in popularity in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and that open-access articles enjoy the “open access advantage” in citations similar to the larger scientific literature. The benefit of the open access advantage may motivate researchers to make their publications open access and pursue publication outlets that support it. In consideration of the direct connection between citations and journal impact factor, journal editors may improve the accessibility and impact of published articles by encouraging authors to self-archive manuscripts on preprint servers.

Download Full-text

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

Austrian Journal of Statistics ◽

10.17713/ajs.v49i5.1186 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.2196/preprints.17540 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Open Access publishing in Medicine: lights and shadows.

10.1101/2021.11.08.467687 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Nicola Bernabo ◽

Luca Valbonetti ◽

Alessandra Ordinelli ◽

Rosa Ciccarelli ◽

Barbara Barboni

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Scientific Community ◽

Scientific Literature ◽

Research Output ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Medical Field ◽

Related Factors ◽

H Index ◽

Use Of Internet ◽

The Impact

The widespread use of internet has had enormous consequences in changing the way of accessing to scientific literature in all domains of knowledge and, in particular, in medicine. One of the most important related factors is the idea of making research output freely available: the so-called Open Access (OA) option. OA is considered very important in spreading of knowledge, breaking down barriers in benefit of research, and increasing the impact of research outputs within the scientific community. Here, we carried out a comparison between Non-Open Access (NOA) and OA medical Journals in terms of growing rate, geographical distribution, and the impact on scientific community. We collected the bibliometric data on the scientific Journals indexed in Scopus starting from 2001 to 2016 published either as NOA or OA. Then, we analysed the number of Journals, their geolocalization, their impact on the scientific community, and the parameters as SJR, H index, and cites for document (2 years). As a result, we found that while the number of NOA Journals is virtually stable, that of OA is dramatically increasing, with a growing rate higher than 400% in 2016. Then, the majority of OA Journals are published in developing Countries (Brazil, India, South Africa, South Korea, New Zealand, Serbia, and Poland) and their impact within researchers is lower compared to the NOA Journals. In conclusion, our data provide an updated and unprecedented picture of OA adoption in medical field, with its lights and shadows.

Download Full-text

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01735-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Amanda Costa Araujo ◽

Adriane Aver Vanin ◽

Dafne Port Nascimento ◽

Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez ◽

Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Open Access ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Online Media ◽

Press Releases ◽

Citation Counts ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Publishing Journal

Abstract Background Social media has been used to disseminate the contents of scientific articles. To measure the impact of this, a new tool called Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through online media. This systematic review aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and published article variables and Altmetric scores. Methods Searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library were conducted. We extracted data related to both the publishing article and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. The methodological quality of included articles was analyzed by the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies. Results A total of 19 articles were considered eligible. These articles summarized a total of 573,842 studies. Citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access, and press releases generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitude of these associations ranged from weak to strong. Conclusion Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common variables associated with Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals, and the use of press releases are also likely to be associated with online media attention. Systematic review registration This review does not contain health-related outcomes. Therefore, it is not eligible for registration.

Download Full-text

What Are the Variables Associated With Altmetric Scores? – An Overview of Methodological Reviews

10.21203/rs.3.rs-128288/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Amanda Costa Araujo ◽

Adriane Aver Vanin ◽

Dafne Port Nascimento ◽

Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez ◽

Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

The Media ◽

Citation Counts ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Publishing Journal

Abstract Background: 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. 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. 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, 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. Conclusion: 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.Systematic Review registrations: Not applicable

Download Full-text

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

Education for Information ◽

10.3233/efi-200442 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-22

Author(s):

Metin Orbay ◽

Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽

Ruben Miranda

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Educational Research ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Bibliometric Indicators ◽

Strongly Correlated ◽

Starting Point ◽

Consistent Assessment ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

Download Full-text

Problems faced by Researchers and pressure on Impact Factor Journal Editors

Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.12669/pjms.37.3.4296 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 37 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Shaukat Ali Jawaid

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Original Work ◽

Impact Factor Journal ◽

Creative Commons ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Open Access Article

doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.4296 How to cite this:Jawaid SA. Problems faced by Researchers and pressure on Impact Factor Journal Editors. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(3):616-620. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.4296 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Impact Factors of the Most-Cited Cardiovascular Journals

Circulation Research ◽

10.1161/circresaha.119.315249 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 124 (12) ◽

pp. 1718-1724 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Tobias Opthof

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

European Heart Journal ◽

The Other ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Additional Advantage ◽

The Right ◽

Number Of Classes ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

In this article, I show that the distribution of citations to papers published by the top 30 journals in the category Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems of the Web of Science is extremely skewed. This skewness is to the right, which means that there is a long tail of papers that are cited much more frequently than the other papers of the same journal. The consequence is that there is a large difference between the mean and the median of the citation of the papers published by the journals. I further found that there are no differences between the citation distributions of the top 4 journals European Heart Journal , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and Circulation Research . Despite the fact that the journal impact factor (IF) varied between 23.425 for Eur Heart J and 15.211 for Circ Res with the other 2 journals in between, the median citation of their articles plus reviews (IF Median) was 10 for all 4 journals. Given the fact that their citation distributions were similar, it is obvious that an indicator (IF Median) that reflects this similarity must be superior to the classical journal impact factor, which may indicate a nonexisting difference. It is underscored that the IF Median is substantially lower than the journal impact factor for all 30 journals under consideration in this article. Finally, the IF Median has the additional advantage that there is no artificial ranking of 128 journals in the category but rather an attribution of journals to a limited number of classes with comparable impact.

Download Full-text

Ckj consolidation among Q1 Urology and Nephrology journals

Clinical Kidney Journal ◽

10.1093/ckj/sfaa197 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 (5) ◽

pp. 723-727

Author(s):

Alberto Ortiz

Keyword(s):

Chronic Kidney Disease ◽

Kidney Disease ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Cost Efficiency ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Outcome Prediction ◽

Web Of Science ◽

Sglt2 Inhibitors ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

Abstract The Clinical Kidney Journal (ckj) impact factor from Clarivate’s Web of Science for 2019 was 3.388. This consolidates ckj among journals in the top 25% (first quartile, Q1) in the Urology and Nephrology field according to the journal impact factor. The manuscripts contributing the most to the impact factor focused on chronic kidney disease (CKD) epidemiology and evaluation, CKD complications and their management, cost-efficiency of renal replacement therapy, pathogenesis of CKD, familial kidney disease and the environment–genetics interface, onconephrology, technology, SGLT2 inhibitors and outcome prediction. We provide here an overview of the hottest and most impactful topics for 2017–19.

Download Full-text

Library Supported Open Access Funds: Criteria, Impact, and Viability

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice ◽

10.18438/eblip29623 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 21-37

Author(s):

Amanda B. Click ◽

Rachel Borchardt

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Best Practices ◽

Financial Stability ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

High Impact ◽

H Index ◽

Publication Data ◽

Scholarly Publications ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Article Impact

Abstract Objective – This study analyzes scholarly publications supported by library open access funds, including author demographics, journal trends, and article impact. It also identifies and summarizes open access fund criteria and viability. The goal is to better understand the sustainability of open access funds, as well as identify potential best practices for institutions with open access funds. Methods – Publication data was solicited from universities with open access (OA) funds, and supplemented with publication and author metrics, including Journal Impact Factor, Altmetric Attention Score, and author h-index. Additionally, data was collected from OA fund websites, including fund criteria and guidelines. Results – Library OA funds tend to support faculty in science and medical fields. Impact varied widely, especially between disciplines, but a limited measurement indicated an overall smaller relative impact of publications funded by library OA funds. Many open access funds operate using similar criteria related to author and publication eligibility, which seem to be largely successful at avoiding the funding of articles published in predatory journals. Conclusions – Libraries have successfully funded many publications using criteria that could constitute best practices in this area. However, institutions with OA funds may need to identify opportunities to increase support for high-impact publications, as well as consider the financial stability of these funds. Alternative models for OA support are discussed in the context of an ever-changing open access landscape.

Download Full-text