scholarly journals Analyzing University of Virginia Health publications using open data, Python, and Streamlit

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anson Parker ◽  
Abbey Heflin ◽  
Lucy Carr Jones
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Data Visualization ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
University Of Virginia ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Rest Api

As part of a larger project to understand the publishing choices of UVA Health authors and support open access publishing, a team from the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library analyzed an open data set from Europe PMC, which includes metadata from PubMed records. We used the Europe PMC REST API to search for articles published in 2017–2020 with “University of Virginia” in the author affiliation field. Subsequently, we parsed the JSON metadata in Python and used Streamlit to create a data visualization from our public GitHub repository. At present, this shows the relative proportions of open access versus subscription-only articles published by UVA Health authors. Although subscription services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions allow users to do similar analyses, we believe this is a novel approach to doing this type of bibliometric research with open data and open source tools.  

scholarly journals Merits and Limits: Applying open data to monitor open access publications in bibliometric databases

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aliakbar Akbaritabar ◽  
Stephan Stahlschmidt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Contradictory Information ◽  
Bibliometric Databases

Identifying and monitoring Open Access (OA) publications might seem a trivial task while practical efforts prove otherwise. Contradictory information arise often depending on metadata employed. We strive to assign OA status to publications in Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus while complementing it with different sourcesof OA information to resolve contradicting cases. We linked publications from WOS and Scopus via DOIs and ISSNs to Unpaywall, Crossref, DOAJ and ROAD. Only about 70% of articles and reviews from WOS and Scopus could be matched via a DOI to Unpaywall. Matching with Crossref brought 53 distinct licences, which define in many cases the legally binding access status of publications. But only 53% of publications hold only a single licence on Crossref, while more than 42% have no licence information submitted to Crossref. Contrasting OA information from Crossref licences with Unpaywall we found contradictory cases overall amounting to more than 13%, which might be partially explained by (ex-)including green OA. A further manual check found about 17% of OA publications that are not accessible and about 15% non-OA publications that are accessible through publishers’ websites. These preliminary results suggest that identification of OA state of publications denotes a difficult and currently unfulfilled task.

scholarly journals EPS and Open Science: an update

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-28
Author(s):  
C. Rossel ◽  
L. van Dyck
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
The Way

The movement towards an Open Science is well engaged and irreversible. It includes Open Access publishing, Open Data and Open Collaborations with several new orientations, among which citizen science. Indeed, in the digital era, the way research is performed, its output shared and published is changing significantly, as are the expectations of policy makers and society at large.

scholarly journals OPTIMETA – Strengthening the Open Access publishing system through open citations and spatiotemporal metadata 

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Hauschke ◽  
Daniel Nüst ◽  
Anette Cordts ◽  
Svantje Lilienthal
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Needs Analysis ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Citation Networks ◽  
Temporal Properties ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Machine Readable

The BMBF project OPTIMETA aims to strengthen the Open Access publishing system by connecting open citations and spatiotemporal metadata from open access journals with openly accessible data sources. For this purpose, we will extend Open Journal Systems (OJS) to give it functionalities for collecting and distributing open data by developing two OJS plugins for capturing citation networks and articles' spatial and temporal properties as machine-readable and accessible metadata. We will ensure the target group-orientated design of the plugins by performing a comprehensive needs analysis for key stakeholders: the editors or operators of OA journals and the researchers, as authors and readers of articles. The developments will be designed and tested in cooperation with several independent journals and OA publishers. Overall, OPTIMETA supports the attraction of independent OA journals as publication venues by substantially improving the discoverability and visibility of OA publications through enrichment and interlinking of article metadata.

scholarly journals Applying Crossref and Unpaywall information to identify gold, hidden gold, hybrid and delayed Open Access publications in the KB publication corpus

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aliakbar Akbaritabar ◽  
Stephan Stahlschmidt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Meta Information

Identifying Open Access (OA) publications might seem a trivial task while practical efforts prove otherwise. In this project, we wanted to assign OA tags to publications in KB database. We queried KB in-house database up to 2017 (including Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus) for all articles and reviews. We then matched the corresponding DOIs to three sources of OA information: Unpaywall, Crossref and Bielefeld list of gold OA journals. This allowed us to define the OA status for publications. We found close to 14 million publications (articles and reviews between 2000 and 2016) from WOS (69.75% of all) and close to 18 million from Scopus (68.67% of all) with an equivalent DOI in Unpaywall. We matched KB publications database with Crossref data (from April 2018) and found 53 distinct licence URLs, which define in many cases the legally binding access status of publications. We found that more than half a million publications have more than one licence record in Crossref (in contrast to near 8 million with only one record and more than 6 million without a licence URL). We evaluated if these licences were open or closed access. We also matched respective journal ISSNs with DOAJ and ROAD databases and presented a categorization of publications to Gold, Hidden Gold, Hybrid and Delayed OA accounting for uncertainty due to missing licence information via a new sub-category Probable Hybrid OA. We validate our findings via manual checks and a crosscheck of OA information from the aforementioned varying sources. While the manual check on a sample of publications revealed a small but noticeable degree of apparently incorrect meta-information on publication’s OA status, the contrast of OA information from the diverse OA information sources highlights the partially unsteady base for an OA monitoring based on open data.

scholarly journals Medical and health sciences academics’ behaviours and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals: a perspective from South Korea

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyoung Hee Joung ◽  
Jennifer Rowley ◽  
Laura Sbaffi
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Gold Open Access

This article seeks to extend the knowledge of the behaviour and attitudes towards open access publishing through a survey that focusses on the attitudes and behaviours of academic researchers in Korea working in medicine and healthcare. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and re-use. A significant proportion of the articles (mean 58%) published by this group are published gold open access, consistent with the push in Korea towards international impact for their research. Researchers were more positive about the benefits of OAP than they were negative about its disadvantages. Analysis of responses on the basis of gender, and experience in publishing, showed some significant differences in attitudes to some statements.

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 levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Bosman ◽  
Bianca Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Pure Gold ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Status Data

Across the world there is growing interest in open access publishing among researchers, institutions, funders and publishers alike. It is assumed that open access levels are growing, but hitherto the exact levels and patterns of open access have been hard to determine and detailed quantitative studies are scarce. Using newly available open access status data from oaDOI in Web of Science we are now able to explore year-on-year open access levels across research fields, languages, countries, institutions, funders and topics, and try to relate the resulting patterns to disciplinary, national and institutional contexts. With data from the oaDOI API we also look at the detailed breakdown of open access by types of gold open access (pure gold, hybrid and bronze), using universities in the Netherlands as an example. There is huge diversity in open access levels on all dimensions, with unexpected levels for e.g. Portuguese as language, Astronomy & Astrophysics as research field, countries like Tanzania, Peru and Latvia, and Zika as topic. We explore methodological issues and offer suggestions to improve conditions for tracking open access status of research output. Finally, we suggest potential future applications for research and policy development. We have shared all data and code openly.

scholarly journals INTACT – Collecting data on fee-based Open Access publishing

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Pieper
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Research Society ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
German Research Foundation ◽  
Open Access Journals

See video of the presentation.The transformation from a subscription based journal market to a fee-based Open Access publishing requires a monitoring of  APC expenditures. This is not only necessary to ensure price transparency on a developing APC market. In fact funding organizations, library consortia and other stakeholders need a valid data base to be able to evaluate Open Access funding policies or transformation strategies.The presentation will give a short overview about existing initiatives to collect APC data and will then introduce the new project “INTACT  - Transparent Infrastructure for fee-based Open Access publishing”. The project, which is funded by the “German Research Foundation” (DFG) and supported by the “DINI working group Electronic Publishing” is a cooperation of Bielefeld University Library, the “Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Science” (I2SoS) at Bielefeld University and the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL). The INTACT approach combines a bibliometric analysis of fee-based Open Access publishing in academic institutions with establishing a standardised reporting and open data service for APC data. By working together with the ESAC initiative (http://esac-initiative.org/), the project wants to increase the efficiency of Open Access publishing workflows in universities and research organizations together with leading Open Access publishers.INTACT uses Open Science workflows for aggregation, use and reuse of APC data. Even before  the official start, 21 german universities and 5 research society funds are providing their data into a GitHub-Repository (http://openapc.github.io/), the datasets are available under a Open Database License. Due to DFG funding policy for Open Access publication funds in Germany, the whole dataset releases  currently information on more than 3.200 articles in real open access journals, which charge publication fees, and total expenditures for more than 4 million EURO. But information about Open Access articles in toll-access journals ("hybrid") are provided as well. Further more, the presentation discusses basic requirements for creating an international network for analyzing and monitoring fee-based Open Access publishing.

scholarly journals Report from the "What Is Open?" Workgroup

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Anderson ◽  
Seth Denbo ◽  
Diane Graves ◽  
Susan Haigh ◽  
Steven Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Broad Spectrum ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Current Definition ◽  
Effective Dissemination ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of

The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along a broad spectrum and propose an alternative way of describing and evaluating openness based on four attributes: discoverable, accessible, reusable, and transparent. These four attributes of openness, taken together, form the draft “DART Framework for Open Access.” This framework can be applied to both research artifacts as well as research processes. We welcome input from the broader scholarly community about this framework.OSI2016 workgroup questionThere is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?

scholarly journals Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Bosman ◽  
Bianca Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Pure Gold ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Status Data

Across the world there is growing interest in open access publishing among researchers, institutions, funders and publishers alike. It is assumed that open access levels are growing, but hitherto the exact levels and patterns of open access have been hard to determine and detailed quantitative studies are scarce. Using newly available open access status data from oaDOI in Web of Science we are now able to explore year-on-year open access levels across research fields, languages, countries, institutions, funders and topics, and try to relate the resulting patterns to disciplinary, national and institutional contexts. With data from the oaDOI API we also look at the detailed breakdown of open access by types of gold open access (pure gold, hybrid and bronze), using universities in the Netherlands as an example. There is huge diversity in open access levels on all dimensions, with unexpected levels for e.g. Portuguese as language, Astronomy & Astrophysics as research field, countries like Tanzania, Peru and Latvia, and Zika as topic. We explore methodological issues and offer suggestions to improve conditions for tracking open access status of research output. Finally, we suggest potential future applications for research and policy development. We have shared all data and code openly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document